Jewish teacher or personal spiritual guide
POPULARITY
Categories
338 episodes with Rav
336 episodes with Rav
253 episodes with Rav
241 episodes with Rav
113 episodes with Rav
230 episodes with Rav
72 episodes with Rav
158 episodes with Rav
83 episodes with Rav
60 episodes with Rav
43 episodes with Rav
50 episodes with Rav
87 episodes with Rav
83 episodes with Rav
57 episodes with Rav
68 episodes with Rav
57 episodes with Rav
44 episodes with Rav
23 episodes with Rav
52 episodes with Rav
29 episodes with Rav
43 episodes with Rav
22 episodes with Rav
31 episodes with Rav
32 episodes with Rav
26 episodes with Rav
48 episodes with Rav
47 episodes with Rav
21 episodes with Rav
27 episodes with Rav
12 episodes with Rav
23 episodes with Rav
42 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
14 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
11 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
22 episodes with Rav
12 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
19 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
26 episodes with Rav
15 episodes with Rav
8 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
8 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
14 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
13 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
38 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
36 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
33 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
A debate exists between a braita and Rav regarding communal peace offerings brought on Shavuot for the sake of rams instead of sheep; the braita deems the sacrifice ineffective, while Rav holds it is. Rav Chisda and Raba disagree on the specific nature of this case. Their dispute centers on whether the laws of "intent for the wrong sacrifice" apply when a kohen mistakenly misidentifies the animal's original purpose. Two objections, one from Mishna Gittin 54a and one from a braita, are raised against Raba's position that a sacrifice offered for the wrong purpose by mistake remains valid. In both instances, the Gemara resolves the objections. The Mishna explains that the daily tamid and the special mussaf sacrifices of Shabbat and festivals do not preclude one another. However, the precise meaning of the Mishna is initially unclear. The Gemara introduces a question posed by Rabbi Chiya bar Avin to Rav Chisda: if only one animal is available, should it be used for today's mussaf or saved for tomorrow's tamid? Initially, our Mishna is cited to prove that there is no specific preference between the two, but this proof is rejected as inconclusive. A different source is brought to resolve the question, but it is also dismissed, as the Gemara determines it refers to a case irrelevant to the current discussion.
A debate exists between a braita and Rav regarding communal peace offerings brought on Shavuot for the sake of rams instead of sheep; the braita deems the sacrifice ineffective, while Rav holds it is. Rav Chisda and Raba disagree on the specific nature of this case. Their dispute centers on whether the laws of "intent for the wrong sacrifice" apply when a kohen mistakenly misidentifies the animal's original purpose. Two objections, one from Mishna Gittin 54a and one from a braita, are raised against Raba's position that a sacrifice offered for the wrong purpose by mistake remains valid. In both instances, the Gemara resolves the objections. The Mishna explains that the daily tamid and the special mussaf sacrifices of Shabbat and festivals do not preclude one another. However, the precise meaning of the Mishna is initially unclear. The Gemara introduces a question posed by Rabbi Chiya bar Avin to Rav Chisda: if only one animal is available, should it be used for today's mussaf or saved for tomorrow's tamid? Initially, our Mishna is cited to prove that there is no specific preference between the two, but this proof is rejected as inconclusive. A different source is brought to resolve the question, but it is also dismissed, as the Gemara determines it refers to a case irrelevant to the current discussion.
Learning weekly at Shirat David Efrat Likutei Halachos in the spirit of Purim maximizing the special time to come by waking up Bechinas aka Aspect of Chatzos aka Midnight style for an increase in Emuna. Tonight is the Hilula 7th Adar Moshe Rabeinu we tune extra into Rotzon Hashem, Daas, Posak, Will of G-d, Shalom Bayis aka Peace in the home
The rabbis disagree on the required length of tzitzit strings, which implies that a specific length is necessary. However, this appears to contradict a ruling by the elders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel that there is no requisite amount. This contradiction is reconciled by explaining that their statement refers to the maximum length. A braita emphasizes the importance of the strings hanging down, as proven by the usage of the word "tzitzit" in a different context (Yechezkel 8:3). How are tzitzit prepared? Specifically, how far from the garment's edge should they be, and how many strings are inserted and in what manner? There are various opinions on these matters. Is a bracha recited when preparing tzitzit? Can a non-Jew prepare them? Rav Chisda believed these two questions were connected and challenged Rav based on that premise; however, Rav Chisda's understanding was ultimately rejected. Which part of the process must be performed "for the sake of" the mitzva? Some maintain that the strings must be spun for the sake of the mitzva, while others hold that only the final preparation of the tzitzit must be done with this intent.
Rav shimon bar yochai story!! Teach or learn!? America got to wake up!!!
The rabbis disagree on the required length of tzitzit strings, which implies that a specific length is necessary. However, this appears to contradict a ruling by the elders of Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel that there is no requisite amount. This contradiction is reconciled by explaining that their statement refers to the maximum length. A braita emphasizes the importance of the strings hanging down, as proven by the usage of the word "tzitzit" in a different context (Yechezkel 8:3). How are tzitzit prepared? Specifically, how far from the garment's edge should they be, and how many strings are inserted and in what manner? There are various opinions on these matters. Is a bracha recited when preparing tzitzit? Can a non-Jew prepare them? Rav Chisda believed these two questions were connected and challenged Rav based on that premise; however, Rav Chisda's understanding was ultimately rejected. Which part of the process must be performed "for the sake of" the mitzva? Some maintain that the strings must be spun for the sake of the mitzva, while others hold that only the final preparation of the tzitzit must be done with this intent.
This Wednesday's QA shiur is generously sponsored by Bernie Samet. In loving memory of his father, Yaakov ben Rachel, whose yahrzeit is on the 29th of Shevat; in memory of his mother, Chaya Sarah bas Gittel, whose yahrzeit is on the 26th of Shevat; in memory of his beloved wife, Baila bas Zlata, a"h; whose yahrzeit was on 13th of kislev and in memory of his sister's granddaughter, Rachael bas Rivka Tova, a"h, who was niftar on the 17th of Shevat. May the learning of this shiur serve as an aliyah for their neshamot.
Rava explains that the top knot on the tzitzit (after all the windings) must be of Torah origin. If it were not, the attachment would be considered temporary, and there would be no need for the Torah to permit the use of mixed types (shatnez—wool and linen) in tzitzit. Raba bar Rav Ada transmitted in the name of Rav that if a single thread is torn at its base (the top of the tzitzit), the tzitzit are no longer valid. When Rav Nachman taught this, Rava raised a challenge from a braita, but Rav Nachman reinterpreted the source in a way that resolved the contradiction. Raba stated in the name of Rav that the specific thread used for the windings counts as one of the required threads of the tzitzit. Rav Yosef corrected the attribution, noting that the statement actually originated from Shmuel. Raba taught in the name of Shmuel that if the techelet thread was mostly consumed by the windings, leaving only a small amount of string to hang down, the tzitzit remain valid. Rav Yosef again corrected him, clarifying that this statement came from Rav. Rav is quoted by another source as establishing the halakha on three points: a minimum of set of one windings is necessary, and the ideal tzitzit consists of one-third windings and two-thirds hanging string. According to Rebbi, each winding (chulya) should of one thread wound at least three times. However, a different braita states there should be between seven and thirteen windings, representing the seven firmaments and the spaces between them. One should also begin and end the windings with a white string, as derived from the biblical verse. Rav and Raba bar bar Hana disagree about whether a garment with only windings and no loose strings hanging is valid. Their debate is rooted in different ways of understanding the purpose of the terms petil and gedilim used in the Torah. Shmuel says in the name of Levi that even the white threads can be made of wool when placed on a linen garment. A question is then raised as to whether a woolen garment can have linen threads; Rav Yehuda's statement is cited to answer this, as he explicitly permits linen strings in a woolen garment. He even permits using both wool and linen strings in a silk garment. Rav Nachman disagrees with this last point and exempts a silk garment from tzitzit entirely. Rava challenges Rav Nachman's position, but Rav Nachman resolves the difficulty. Their underlying dispute is whether the word beged (clothing) in the Torah refers to all materials or only to those made of wool or linen.
Episode 183 February 12, 2026 On the Needles 1:22 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Melt the ICE hat by YarnCultMN, Knit Picks Stroll Fingering in Hollyberry DONE!! Mountain Mist Hat by tincanknits, Knit Picks Brava Worsted in brindle, black, caution, currant DONE!! Jane Marple dishcloth by Kitchen Sink Shop, Knit Picks Dishie in Blue DONE!! Tinker by Wooly Wormhead, Knit Picks Stroll Tweed in Dalmation DONE!! Secret Olympic Sweater Project On the Easel 9:12 100-Day Compositions Olympic Sketchbooking! Daffodils are blooming! On the Table 13:34 Peanut Butter Oat Fudge Bars - Yossy Arefi RANCHO GordoChristmas Lima Bean and Cabbage soup January cookbook: Dinner by Meera Sodha: Mango paneer curry Green pasta with zhoug Coconut braised winter greens Sweet potatoes with gr. Turkey, leek, and onion with dijon. Cookie boxes for the college kids On the Nightstand 25:02 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! Seeing Other People by Emily Wibberley & Austin Siegemund-Broka (audio) The Unquiet Grave by Dervla McTiernan Through Gates of Garnet and Gold by Seanan McGuire Labyrinth's Heart by M.A. Carrick Startlement by Ada Limón Mona's Eyes by Thomas Schlesser
Rava explains that the top knot on the tzitzit (after all the windings) must be of Torah origin. If it were not, the attachment would be considered temporary, and there would be no need for the Torah to permit the use of mixed types (shatnez—wool and linen) in tzitzit. Raba bar Rav Ada transmitted in the name of Rav that if a single thread is torn at its base (the top of the tzitzit), the tzitzit are no longer valid. When Rav Nachman taught this, Rava raised a challenge from a braita, but Rav Nachman reinterpreted the source in a way that resolved the contradiction. Raba stated in the name of Rav that the specific thread used for the windings counts as one of the required threads of the tzitzit. Rav Yosef corrected the attribution, noting that the statement actually originated from Shmuel. Raba taught in the name of Shmuel that if the techelet thread was mostly consumed by the windings, leaving only a small amount of string to hang down, the tzitzit remain valid. Rav Yosef again corrected him, clarifying that this statement came from Rav. Rav is quoted by another source as establishing the halakha on three points: a minimum of set of one windings is necessary, and the ideal tzitzit consists of one-third windings and two-thirds hanging string. According to Rebbi, each winding (chulya) should of one thread wound at least three times. However, a different braita states there should be between seven and thirteen windings, representing the seven firmaments and the spaces between them. One should also begin and end the windings with a white string, as derived from the biblical verse. Rav and Raba bar bar Hana disagree about whether a garment with only windings and no loose strings hanging is valid. Their debate is rooted in different ways of understanding the purpose of the terms petil and gedilim used in the Torah. Shmuel says in the name of Levi that even the white threads can be made of wool when placed on a linen garment. A question is then raised as to whether a woolen garment can have linen threads; Rav Yehuda's statement is cited to answer this, as he explicitly permits linen strings in a woolen garment. He even permits using both wool and linen strings in a silk garment. Rav Nachman disagrees with this last point and exempts a silk garment from tzitzit entirely. Rava challenges Rav Nachman's position, but Rav Nachman resolves the difficulty. Their underlying dispute is whether the word beged (clothing) in the Torah refers to all materials or only to those made of wool or linen.
Link to Ptil Techelet website. The Gemara brings two different versions of the incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, whose tzitzit were torn on Shabbat while he was walking home. This raises the subject of "kevod haberiyot" (human dignity), which overrides a "lo ta'aseh" (negative commandment) in the Torah. Both versions bring the explanation of Rav bar Shaba, who explained that this law refers specifically to the negative commandment of "lo tasur" (do not stray from the words of the Sages), meaning that it only overrides Rabbinic prohibitions. For tzitzit, one must place two strings of techelet and two white strings. The Mishna rules, however, that this is not essential – one can have only white or only techelet. Also regarding the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head - they are two independent mitzvot and do not hinder one another; someone who has only one of them puts it on and recites the blessing over it. The Gemara suggests that the Mishna does not follow the view of Rebbi, who holds that the techelet and the white do hinder one another. He learns this from the verse "And you shall see him" (u're-item oto), which teaches that both must be together, while the rabbis learn that it is possible to see each kind separately. However, two other suggestion were brought to explain the Mishna according to the view of Rebbi: Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: The law in the Mishna (that they do not hinder) was stated regarding the order of precedence. It is a mitzva to first place the white (since the white is the color of the "corner" of the garment, which appears in the verse first), but if one placed techelet before white, one has fulfilled the obligation, though the mitzva has not been performed in the most ideal way. Rava: The Mishna is speaking about gerdumin (remnants) of one of the colors - strings that were torn after they were already placed in the garment - the tzitzit remains valid. His words rely on the words of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, who said that remnants of techelet are valid. The minimum measure that must remain in a string to maintain its validity is "enough to tie them" (kedei le'anvan), meaning a length sufficient to make a slipknot. From the statement of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, Rava concludes that one must tie a knot on each and every "chulya" (group of windings) in the tzitzit. The reason for this is that if one does not tie a knot at every chulya, if just a short strand is permitted, the moment the string is severed above the first knot, all the windings will unravel and disappear. The knots between the chulyot ensure that even if part of the string is cut off, the structure of the rest of the tzitzit will be preserved and it will remain valid under the law of gerdumin. However, Rava's assumption is rejected as the sons of Rabbi Chiya may only permit gardumim when there are knots at every chulya.
Link to Ptil Techelet website. The Gemara brings two different versions of the incident involving Mar bar Rav Ashi, whose tzitzit were torn on Shabbat while he was walking home. This raises the subject of "kevod haberiyot" (human dignity), which overrides a "lo ta'aseh" (negative commandment) in the Torah. Both versions bring the explanation of Rav bar Shaba, who explained that this law refers specifically to the negative commandment of "lo tasur" (do not stray from the words of the Sages), meaning that it only overrides Rabbinic prohibitions. For tzitzit, one must place two strings of techelet and two white strings. The Mishna rules, however, that this is not essential – one can have only white or only techelet. Also regarding the tefillin of the hand and the tefillin of the head - they are two independent mitzvot and do not hinder one another; someone who has only one of them puts it on and recites the blessing over it. The Gemara suggests that the Mishna does not follow the view of Rebbi, who holds that the techelet and the white do hinder one another. He learns this from the verse "And you shall see him" (u're-item oto), which teaches that both must be together, while the rabbis learn that it is possible to see each kind separately. However, two other suggestion were brought to explain the Mishna according to the view of Rebbi: Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav: The law in the Mishna (that they do not hinder) was stated regarding the order of precedence. It is a mitzva to first place the white (since the white is the color of the "corner" of the garment, which appears in the verse first), but if one placed techelet before white, one has fulfilled the obligation, though the mitzva has not been performed in the most ideal way. Rava: The Mishna is speaking about gerdumin (remnants) of one of the colors - strings that were torn after they were already placed in the garment - the tzitzit remains valid. His words rely on the words of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, who said that remnants of techelet are valid. The minimum measure that must remain in a string to maintain its validity is "enough to tie them" (kedei le'anvan), meaning a length sufficient to make a slipknot. From the statement of the sons of Rabbi Chiya, Rava concludes that one must tie a knot on each and every "chulya" (group of windings) in the tzitzit. The reason for this is that if one does not tie a knot at every chulya, if just a short strand is permitted, the moment the string is severed above the first knot, all the windings will unravel and disappear. The knots between the chulyot ensure that even if part of the string is cut off, the structure of the rest of the tzitzit will be preserved and it will remain valid under the law of gerdumin. However, Rava's assumption is rejected as the sons of Rabbi Chiya may only permit gardumim when there are knots at every chulya.
Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 2. 8 (1985) (07.04.2003)
Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 2. 8 (1985)
Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985) (06.04.2003)
Rabash. Make for Yourself a Rav and Buy Yourself a Friend - 1. 1 (1985)
The Rebbe provides a halachic perspective on cases where doctors warn that pregnancy may pose a danger. He cites the Tzemach Tzedek and other authorities who are lenient in specific circumstances, emphasizing that one should follow the guidance of the Chabad Rebbes and consult with a local Rav who is an expert in these laws. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/004_igros_kodesh/av/1122
The Rebbe firmly rejects despair, emphasizing simple faith that Hashem guides each person with Hashgacha Pratis and that all is for the good. Reflection on Chumash, Tehillim, Tanya, and Chassidus strengthens one's spirit. Regarding a shidduch and past health issues, consult a doctor and a Rav. Blessings for good news. https://www.torahrecordings.com/rebbe/igroskodesh/016/005/6070
Thank you for tuning in to Episode 314 of the Down Cellar Studio Podcast. Full show notes with photos can be found on my website. This week's segments included: Off the Needles, Hook or Bobbins On the Needles, Hook or Bobbins Brainstorming From the Armchair Knitting in Passing KAL News Contest, News & Notes Life in Focus On a Happy Note Quote of the Week Off the Needles, Hook or Bobbins Hattie's Rainbow Mittens Pattern: Little Waiting for Winter Mittens by Susan B. Anderson- $4 Knitting Pattern available on Ravelry Yarn: Knit Picks Felici Worsted in the Vegas Baby colorway Needles: US 7 (4.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page About the colorway- stripes of gray, blue, green, mustard, red and pink. Hattie's Sparkly Mittens Pattern: Little Waiting for Winter Mittens by Susan B. Anderson- $4 Knitting Pattern available on Ravelry Yarn: Fingering yarn held double- 1 sparkle & 1 non-sparkle base (sparkles are 20g minis from Legacy Fiber Artz Advent calendars of years past) Needles: US 7 (4.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page Traveler Sweater Pattern: The Traveler by Andrea Mowry ($9 pattern available on Ravelry & the designer's website) Yarn: Hazel Knits Small Batch Sport (90/10 SW/Nylon) in a sage green Needles: US 3 (3.25 mm) & US 4 (3.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page Size: 3 Drawstring- fingering weight yarn- US 6 DPNs. I washed it several times, because it was bleeding yellow. I had to wash it several times before all of the rest of the dye let go. Finished. Washed it. Sleeves were too big. I had 28 purl ridges on the sleeves, I ripped back 7 and then worked the ribbing. Wore to Hattie's birthday dinner. Very comfy cozy. I am finding the weight of the hood wants to pull it back on my neck which I'm not sure I love. Have you found this? Woolens & Nosh 2025 Advent Socks Yarn: Woolens & Nosh, 75/25 Superwash Wool/Nylon 2025 Advent Colorway Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry) Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page Finished right after I finished the last episode. Love these so much! Dory Pattern: Mega Ray & Sea Friends by Theresa's Crochet Shop- $15.50 pattern on website or Etsy Yarn: Knit Picks Brava minis in Celestial, Custard, Black & White Hook: C (2.75 mm) Ravelry Project Page Gus the Dino Pattern: Gus the Dino by KP Crochet Patterns. $8.50 US Pattern on Etsy (on sale right now) Yarn: Bernat Blanket in Misty Green & Parfait Chunky in White Hook: J (6.0 mm) Ravelry Project Page 35 mm eyes were too big! I bought smaller ones, beheaded Gus and gave him a new head with new eyes! On the Needles, Hook or Bobbins Back to the Future Socks Yarn: Legacy Fiber Artz Steel Toes. Micro-Sock Kit in the Back to the Future Colorway Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry) Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Back to the Future Sock set- gifted to me by Sue & Chelsea- part of their 4 Sundays of Advent yarn in 2025. About the Colorway- speckles of pink, orange, yellow purple and blue with a blue/purple mini. Progress- just about to toe of sock 1 Arielle's Socks Yarn: Edelweiss Fibres Standard Sock (75% SW Merino/25% Nylon), 425m for 100g in the Hillside Heather Colorway Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry) Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page About the colorway- maroons, browns and greens. Cast on both on separate needles. Progress- a few inches into leg on one sock, ready to work the toe on the other US 6 shoe. 7.25 inches before toe. About 8.5 inches total foot length. Kirby Wirby 2025 Advent Socks Yarn: Kirby Wirby 75/25 Superwash Merino/Nylon in the 2025 Advent Christmas Toys from the 80s 24 Stripe Colorway Pattern: OMG Heel Socks by Megan Williams ($5 knitting pattern available on Ravelry) Needles: US 1.5 (2.5 mm) Ravelry Project Page Yarn theme: Christmas Toys from the 80s Progress- turned heel on sock 2 Pucker Brush Farm BFL Sweater Spin Fiber: 16 oz of multi colored BFL roving from Pucker Brush Farm (purchased at Rhinebeck 2025), 4 oz Merino in a mustard color Ravelry Project Page I am planning to knit a Traveler sweater inspired by Emily Curtis' handmade version- click here for her Ravelry Project Page. I was thrilled to see a recent post on Emily's Instagram that she made a YouTube video about this spin/knit. I plied up about 8.5grams of the BFL with the Finnsheep. 23 wraps (690 inches/19 yards) .3 ounces / around 8.5 grams I've been keeping my wheel next to my spot on the couch and spinning if not every day, then more days than not. Handspun documentation I went through nearly all of my handspun skeins of yarn. I made updates in each page on Ravelry to add skein information. You can enter length and weight and it add that to your stash. I also ended up changing the names of the finished projects to include the weight and length! I wrote yarn weight (dk sport etc) on physical tags i have on the yarn. So much easier for me to work with. Brainstorming I have 3 skeins of Lion Brand Fisherman's Wool that I used to start a Waverly Cardigan (but the gauge is just too tight)- click here for my Ravelry Project Page. I think it might be good for the Lakes Pullover by Ozetta (Ravelry Pattern- $8 knitting pattern). I found this by searching the yarn on ravelry then doing the advance pattern search to look for sweaters people knit with this yarn. Related- Eileen recently asked if someone in our group had knit a certain pattern she had questions about before purchasing/committing to. If you look at the pattern on Rav and click the Projects Tab. You can use the filters there to select "Made by Group Members" and then click on the Rav group you want to look in. You can use that to see who you want to chat w/ about it. ElizabethisKnitting (on Instagram- shared her Winter Soul Sweater in this post. Its so beautiful! Why are you not all knitting this? Great question. You can find this pattern on Ravelry. From the Armchair Greenwich by Kate Broad. Amazon Affiliate Link. Best Offer Wins by Marisa Kashino. Amazon Affiliate Link. The Maid by Nita Prose. Amazon Affiliate Link. Little One by Olivia Muenter. Amazon Affiliate Link Heated Rivalry by Rachel Reid. Amazon Affiliate Link. The Widow's Husband's Secret Lie (A Satirical Novella) by Freida McFadden. Amazon Affiliate Link. Note: Some links are listed as Amazon Affiliate Links. If you click those, please know that I am an Amazon Associate and I earn money from qualifying purchases. Knitting in Passing At Hattie's birthday dinner, Emelyn asked for help crocheting a circle. They were making a stuffed animal to look like a stage like and had everything done but the center bulk part. Aila also ended up working on it with us. OMG Sock Classes are finished! All of my students turned their heels, some did both socks. Many did their toes and kitchenered. They all had fun and were far more successful than they anticipated so that was very exciting. KAL News Pigskin Party '25 is over! Event Dates: KAL Dates- Thursday September 4, 2025- Monday February 9, 2026 Updates In This Episode Official Sponsor for Quarter 4 (January)- Yarnaceous Fibers- winner announced Commentary from Mary January Participation Prize Winners Announced Grand Prize winners will be announced in the next episode. Commentator Update Thanks to everyone for another fantastic season! The February huddle has been full of chatter about all the projects people rushed to finish before the deadline. However, one of my favorite conversations has been in response to beachsideknits2's question: What is weirdest/most random thing you've ever made? Here are some fantastic answers (prepare to be wowed!) Beachsideknit2's succulent pillow- Ravelry Project Page Tanksoup's Tiktaalik (in case you are like me and had no idea what a tiktaalik is, it "is a 375 million year old fossil fish that was discovered in the Canadian Arctic in 2004" according to this site. Check out Tanksoup's Ravelry Project Page Leahbothe's nose sweaters- Ravelry Project Page And socalknitgirl's top hat—Ravelry Project Page I hope everyone has as much fun as I did this season! See you all this summer for splash pad party! Mary Contest, News & Notes Ross Farm fire Check out this news article with details about the fire. Click here if you're interested in donating or consider purchasing yarn, fiber etc and letting these sheep live on even after they're gone. On a Happy Note I bought a new car! I went to see Sleepwalker at a local theater. Here's a link to a review that sums up some of my thoughts. I went to see Some Like it Hot in Boston. Megg & I got a fabulous dinner beforehand at Yvonne's. Our waitress even brought over a delicious dumpling dish for us to try (sans lobster). Friday date nights with Dan Running into Riley & her bestie Ellie at Lucky Finn, my current local favorite coffee shop- after the gym on a Saturday morning. It was so hilarious! Very much enjoyed Pluribus on Apple TV+. Seeing Millie in Finding Nemo Jr. and an early dinner after with family. Mani/pedis with Megg, Eme & Hattie for Hattie's birthday. Super Bowl- while we lost it's always fun to watch. I enjoyed the commercials, and had fun cheering on the Seahawks kicker Jason Myers who played football at Marist where I went to college (now Marist University) Hattie's 8th birthday dinner. Dad and I did a Zoom beforehand in celebration of what would have been Mom's 70th with a few of her cousins. Quote of the Week Love and compassion are necessities, not luxuries. Without them humanity cannot survive. -Dalai Lama ------ Thank you for tuning in! Contact Information: Check out the Down Cellar Studio Patreon! Ravelry: BostonJen & Down Cellar Studio Podcast Ravelry Group Instagram: BostonJen1 YouTube: Down Cellar Studio Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/downcellarstudio Sign up for my email newsletter to get the latest on everything happening in the Down Cellar Studio Check out my Down Cellar Studio YouTube Channel Knit Picks Affiliate Link Bookshop Affiliate Link Yarnable Subscription Box Affiliate Link FearLESS Living Fund to benefit the Blind Center of Nevada Music -"Soft Orange Glow" by Josh Woodward. Free download: http://joshwoodward.com/ Note: Some links are listed as Amazon Affiliate Links. If you click those, please know that I am an Amazon Associate and I earn money from qualifying purchases.
This episode of the Tradition Podcast opens with the voice of Rabbi Joseph B. Solovetichik, recorded in 1958, the very year our Journal of Orthodox Jewish Thought was founded. The Rav was speaking as part of a series of lectures which TRADITION has recently presented in digitally remastered form as “A Jewish Philosophy of Man.” In this course R. Soloveitchik asks: What is the unique contribution of Judaism towards our understanding of the most enigmatic figure in all of creation, man? How is this understanding reflected in the halakha? What does this unique perspective teach us about the relationship between Jews and the modern world? We are grateful to Rabbi Dr. Mark Smilowitz — who joins us on the podcast to discuss his work in assembling this resource and its enduring importance for Jewish thought and life. At TraditionOnline.org/JPM you too can “enroll” in this course and learn directly, as it were, from the Rav. Our website curates the recordings along with transcripts of the lectures, and summaries which help situate this material within the framework of the Rav's other teachings and writings (very many of which appeared in the pages of TRADITION). A special digital 262-page companion volume containing all that accompanying written material is available for download online or as a print book at Amazon.com. Mark Smilowitz is a veteran educator in the United States and in Israel and earned his doctorate from the Hebrew University for work explaining Rabbi Soloveitchik's approach to the relationship between halakha and philosophy. Read his “The Lonely Man of Faith as Halakhic Philosophy” (TRADITION, Spring 2023).The post Understanding a Jewish Philosophy of Man first appeared on Tradition Online.
La Mitsva d'accueillir les invités pour Chabbath est tellement importante que certains rêvent de pouvoir non seulement accomplir cette Mitsva mais aussi que Hachem leur donne les moyens de l'embellir. Rav 'Haïm Mayer lance une invitation aux Ba'houriim Yéchiva francophones qui n'auraient pas où passer Chabbath.
Rav Huna states that a closed-in staircase opening (lul) between a house and an upper story requires one mezuza if it has one entrance and two mezuzot if it has two. Rav Papa infers from this that a room (indrona) with four doors requires four mezuzot, even if the resident typically utilizes only one of them. Amemar rules that a doorway situated at a corner is obligated in a mezuza; though Rav Ashi questions this due to the lack of formal doorposts (patzim), Amemar maintains that the edges of the walls themselves serve as the post. Rav Papa observes a doorway in Mar Shmuel's house that had only a left-side post yet was fitted with a mezuza. He questions this practice, as it seems to follow Rabbi Meir, who obligates a mezuza for a house with only one post—but even Rabbi Meir only holds that a mezuza is placed on the right side. The source for the right-side placement is derived from the word "beitecha" (your house), which is interpreted as "biatcha" (your entry). The connection between entry and the right side is either because a person begins their entry by leading with the right foot, or it is derived from the verse regarding Jehoiada the kohen, who placed a chest for donations to the right of the altar as people "came in." The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis regarding a single doorpost centers on the plural phrasing of "mezuzot." The Rabbis hold this implies a minimum of two posts, while Rabbi Meir explains how the term can signify a single post, based on the interpretations of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva who utilize various exegetical principles. A braita derives the obligation to write the mezuza on parchment and then affix it to the wall, rather than writing it directly on the stones of the doorpost as might be understood from a simple reading of the verse. Regarding tefillin, the four paragraphs are all essential (me'akvot); even the omission of a single letter, or the "tip" of the letter yud, renders them invalid. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav adds that every letter must be surrounded by blank parchment on all four sides. The Gemara discusses the source for the four compartments of the head tefillin (shel rosh). Rabbi Yishmael derives the number four from the number of mentions and spelling variations of the word "totafot," while Rabbi Akiva explains that the word is a compound of "tat" (two in the Katpi language) and "pat" (two in the Afriki language). A braita clarifies that while the tefillin shel rosh contain four separate scrolls in four compartments, the arm tefillin (shel yad) consist of all four paragraphs written on a single scroll. If one wrote the tefillin shel rosh on one scroll, it is valid, as long as it is put into four separate compartments. If one wrote the tefillin shel yad on four separate scrolls and placed them in one compartment, it is valid, though Rabbi Yehuda requires them to be glued together to appear as one. Rabbi Yosi rules that a tefillin shel rosh can be used on the arm if it is covering by one piece of leather. A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yosi as Rabbi Yochanan ruled that this is not possible as one cannot lower an item in sanctity, i.e. from the head to the arm. The order of the paragraphs to be placed in the four compartments of the tefillin shel rosh is established as: kadesh and v'haya ki yeviacha on the right, followed by shema and v'haya im shamoa on the left. To resolve a contradiction with another source that reverses this, Abaye clarifies that each source refers to a different perspective of "right" and "left," depending on whether one is looking from the perspective of the reader or the wearer. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam (among others) disagree about how to understand the specific order of the tefillin described in the Gemara. Rav concludes that if a scribe switches the order of the paragraphs, the tefillin are invalid.
Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel rules that a mezuza written on two sheets or columns is invalid. The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita that invalidates a mezuza written on two sheets only when it is placed within two separate sippin (doorposts), implying that if it were placed within a single post, it would be valid. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Shmuel's intent was that even if it is placed in one post, the mere fact that it is "fit" or able to be divided between two posts renders it invalid, as a mezuza. Regarding the determination of the right side in doorways between two rooms, Shmuel rules that one follows the "heker tzir" (the placement of the hinges). Rav Adda explains that this refers to the socket in which the door hinge turns; the side toward which the door opens is considered the primary room, and the right side is determined according to the direction of entry into that room. Rav Nachman instructed the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), who wished to fix a mezuza in his house before its construction was complete, that he must first hang the doors and only afterward fix the mezuza. Concerning the manner of placing the mezuza, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav invalidates a mezuza placed "k'min neger" (like a bolt), meaning like a horizontal bar inserted into the doorway. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the practice in Rabbi's house, where the mezuzot were placed "k'min neger," and resolves it by distinguishing between a completely vertical placement and a horizontal placement. It is further mentioned in this context that Rav Huna would fix a mezuza in the doorway between his house and the Beit Midrash even though Rabbi did not do so, because Rav Huna followed the practice of those accustomed to using that doorway, which renders it a doorway obligated in a mezuza. In the matter of the mezuza's height, Shmuel rules that it should be placed at the beginning of the upper third of the doorway's height. Rav Huna disagrees, holding that the entire area of the doorway is valid, provided the mezuza is one handbreadth (tefach) away from the ground and one handbreadth away from the ceiling beam. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel from a braita and resolves it by explaining that Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosi, who learns from a hekesh (textual comparison) between "u'kshartam" (tefillin) and "u'khtavtam" (mezuza) that just as tefillin are placed high up, so too the mezuza must be high up in the doorway. Rava adds that the mezuza should be placed in the handbreadth closest to the public domain so that a person encounters the mitzva immediately upon entry. Rabbi Chanina adds a conceptual dimension: unlike a king of flesh and blood who sits inside while his subjects guard him from the outside, God guards His servants from the outside while they sit inside, as it is written, "The Lord is your guardian." Additional laws discussed on this page deal with the requirements of a mezuza that depend on the structure of the doorway and the room. Rav Yosef in the name of Rava invalidates a mezuza that was recessed into the thickness of the wall more than a handbreadth. Rava exempts "pitchi shimai" (defective doorways) from mezuza; the Amoraim dispute whether this refers to a doorway without a ceiling or one without a proper doorpost. Similarly, an achsadra (portico) is exempt from mezuza because its posts are intended to support the ceiling rather than to create a doorway. A gatehouse (beit shaar) that opens both to a house and a courtyard needs a mezeua on both entrances. However, a gatehouse that opens to both a house and a garden, the Tannaim dispute - and the Amoraim dispute the interpretation of their words - whether the obligation is determined by the entry to the house or the exit to the garden. Rav Ashi rules according to the stringency of Rav and Shmuel: any doorway used for entry into a house, even if it leads to an open space like a garden, is obligated in a mezuza.
Rav Huna states that a closed-in staircase opening (lul) between a house and an upper story requires one mezuza if it has one entrance and two mezuzot if it has two. Rav Papa infers from this that a room (indrona) with four doors requires four mezuzot, even if the resident typically utilizes only one of them. Amemar rules that a doorway situated at a corner is obligated in a mezuza; though Rav Ashi questions this due to the lack of formal doorposts (patzim), Amemar maintains that the edges of the walls themselves serve as the post. Rav Papa observes a doorway in Mar Shmuel's house that had only a left-side post yet was fitted with a mezuza. He questions this practice, as it seems to follow Rabbi Meir, who obligates a mezuza for a house with only one post—but even Rabbi Meir only holds that a mezuza is placed on the right side. The source for the right-side placement is derived from the word "beitecha" (your house), which is interpreted as "biatcha" (your entry). The connection between entry and the right side is either because a person begins their entry by leading with the right foot, or it is derived from the verse regarding Jehoiada the kohen, who placed a chest for donations to the right of the altar as people "came in." The dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Rabbis regarding a single doorpost centers on the plural phrasing of "mezuzot." The Rabbis hold this implies a minimum of two posts, while Rabbi Meir explains how the term can signify a single post, based on the interpretations of Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva who utilize various exegetical principles. A braita derives the obligation to write the mezuza on parchment and then affix it to the wall, rather than writing it directly on the stones of the doorpost as might be understood from a simple reading of the verse. Regarding tefillin, the four paragraphs are all essential (me'akvot); even the omission of a single letter, or the "tip" of the letter yud, renders them invalid. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav adds that every letter must be surrounded by blank parchment on all four sides. The Gemara discusses the source for the four compartments of the head tefillin (shel rosh). Rabbi Yishmael derives the number four from the number of mentions and spelling variations of the word "totafot," while Rabbi Akiva explains that the word is a compound of "tat" (two in the Katpi language) and "pat" (two in the Afriki language). A braita clarifies that while the tefillin shel rosh contain four separate scrolls in four compartments, the arm tefillin (shel yad) consist of all four paragraphs written on a single scroll. If one wrote the tefillin shel rosh on one scroll, it is valid, as long as it is put into four separate compartments. If one wrote the tefillin shel yad on four separate scrolls and placed them in one compartment, it is valid, though Rabbi Yehuda requires them to be glued together to appear as one. Rabbi Yosi rules that a tefillin shel rosh can be used on the arm if it is covering by one piece of leather. A contradiction is raised against Rabbi Yosi as Rabbi Yochanan ruled that this is not possible as one cannot lower an item in sanctity, i.e. from the head to the arm. The order of the paragraphs to be placed in the four compartments of the tefillin shel rosh is established as: kadesh and v'haya ki yeviacha on the right, followed by shema and v'haya im shamoa on the left. To resolve a contradiction with another source that reverses this, Abaye clarifies that each source refers to a different perspective of "right" and "left," depending on whether one is looking from the perspective of the reader or the wearer. Rashi and Rabbeinu Tam (among others) disagree about how to understand the specific order of the tefillin described in the Gemara. Rav concludes that if a scribe switches the order of the paragraphs, the tefillin are invalid.
Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel rules that a mezuza written on two sheets or columns is invalid. The Gemara raises a difficulty from a braita that invalidates a mezuza written on two sheets only when it is placed within two separate sippin (doorposts), implying that if it were placed within a single post, it would be valid. The difficulty is resolved by explaining that Shmuel's intent was that even if it is placed in one post, the mere fact that it is "fit" or able to be divided between two posts renders it invalid, as a mezuza. Regarding the determination of the right side in doorways between two rooms, Shmuel rules that one follows the "heker tzir" (the placement of the hinges). Rav Adda explains that this refers to the socket in which the door hinge turns; the side toward which the door opens is considered the primary room, and the right side is determined according to the direction of entry into that room. Rav Nachman instructed the Exilarch (Resh Galuta), who wished to fix a mezuza in his house before its construction was complete, that he must first hang the doors and only afterward fix the mezuza. Concerning the manner of placing the mezuza, Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav invalidates a mezuza placed "k'min neger" (like a bolt), meaning like a horizontal bar inserted into the doorway. The Gemara raises a difficulty from the practice in Rabbi's house, where the mezuzot were placed "k'min neger," and resolves it by distinguishing between a completely vertical placement and a horizontal placement. It is further mentioned in this context that Rav Huna would fix a mezuza in the doorway between his house and the Beit Midrash even though Rabbi did not do so, because Rav Huna followed the practice of those accustomed to using that doorway, which renders it a doorway obligated in a mezuza. In the matter of the mezuza's height, Shmuel rules that it should be placed at the beginning of the upper third of the doorway's height. Rav Huna disagrees, holding that the entire area of the doorway is valid, provided the mezuza is one handbreadth (tefach) away from the ground and one handbreadth away from the ceiling beam. The Gemara raises a difficulty against Shmuel from a braita and resolves it by explaining that Shmuel rules in accordance with Rabbi Yosi, who learns from a hekesh (textual comparison) between "u'kshartam" (tefillin) and "u'khtavtam" (mezuza) that just as tefillin are placed high up, so too the mezuza must be high up in the doorway. Rava adds that the mezuza should be placed in the handbreadth closest to the public domain so that a person encounters the mitzva immediately upon entry. Rabbi Chanina adds a conceptual dimension: unlike a king of flesh and blood who sits inside while his subjects guard him from the outside, God guards His servants from the outside while they sit inside, as it is written, "The Lord is your guardian." Additional laws discussed on this page deal with the requirements of a mezuza that depend on the structure of the doorway and the room. Rav Yosef in the name of Rava invalidates a mezuza that was recessed into the thickness of the wall more than a handbreadth. Rava exempts "pitchi shimai" (defective doorways) from mezuza; the Amoraim dispute whether this refers to a doorway without a ceiling or one without a proper doorpost. Similarly, an achsadra (portico) is exempt from mezuza because its posts are intended to support the ceiling rather than to create a doorway. A gatehouse (beit shaar) that opens both to a house and a courtyard needs a mezeua on both entrances. However, a gatehouse that opens to both a house and a garden, the Tannaim dispute - and the Amoraim dispute the interpretation of their words - whether the obligation is determined by the entry to the house or the exit to the garden. Rav Ashi rules according to the stringency of Rav and Shmuel: any doorway used for entry into a house, even if it leads to an open space like a garden, is obligated in a mezuza.
When something precious is taken from us suddenly, it is a tragedy - but Jewish law asks us to first ask a much harder question: was it ever truly ours? This morning we analyze the rather technical laws of an object given to another for safekeeping, including not misusing the object or ignoring the directions of the owner. The Rav, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik, brilliantly widens this to include everything we have, and our lives themselves, are given to us by God for safekeeping. This means we must follow God's instructions or else we have misused (actually stolen) what is not ours, but what is given to us temporarily for safekeeping by God. And this includes that God, at any time, may claim what is God's and take it from us, sometimes, tragically, without warning. 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: / @rabbimichaelwhitman Instagram: / adathmichael Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast... Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG... Please contact Rabbi Whitman (rabbi@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.
Rav Chelbo relates that he saw Rav Huna roll the mezuza from the word "echad" toward the word "shema" and format the paragraphs as setumot (closed). This practice is questioned by a braita where Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar notes that Rabbi Meir wrote mezuzot on duchsustos with margins at the top and bottom and formatted the paragraphs as petuchot (open). Rabbi Meir's reasoning was that the paragraphs are not adjacent in the Torah text itself. Since Rav (Rav Huna's teacher) rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that raises a difficulty on Rav Huna's practice. To resolve the difficulty, it is suggested that Rav only ruled like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar regarding the margins. Abaye further supports this resolution by showing that Rav gives weight to local custom, and the established custom is to write them setumot. The Gemara brings an example to show that Rav gave weight to the established custom from a statement he made regarding use of a sandal for chalitzah, noting that even the testimony of the prophet Eliyahu would not overturn a practice the people have already adopted to use a sandal. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers an alternative explanation for the difficulty on Rav Huna. He explains Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's position as being that while it is a mitzva (ideal) to make them setumot, if they were written petuchot, it would be valid; he reads the words in the braita as "even petuchot." Support for Rav Nachman is brought from a braita stating that a worn-out Sefer Torah or tefillin cannot be repurposed into a mezuza because one does not "lower" an object from a higher level of sanctity to a lower one. From the reason given in the braita, one can infer that if it were not a matter of "lowering" in sanctity, it could be repurposed. This would prove that setumot could be used, as those sections are setumot in a Sefer Torah. However, this suggested proof is rejected. The Gemara raises two other difficulties on the inference that, but for the issue of "lowering" sanctity, a Sefer Torah or tefillin could be repurposed for a mezuza. The first is that tefillin are written on klaf on the side facing the flesh, while a mezuza is written on duchsustos on the side facing the hair. The second difficulty is that a mezuza requires lines (sirtut), while tefillin do not. Both difficulties are resolved. Rav Chelbo further observes that Rav Huna would not sit on a bed while a Sefer Torah was resting upon it, opting instead to place the Torah on an inverted vessel on the ground. However, Rabba bar bar Hana, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, permits sitting on the same bed as a Torah. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel states that a mezuza written in a "letter" (iggeret) format is invalid, as it requires the formal writing style of a Sefer. He also rules that hanging a mezuza on a stick or placing it behind a door is invalid and even "dangerous," as it must be fixed "on your gates." Shmuel specifies that the mezuza must be placed within the hollow of the doorway.
There are people who have to face overwhelming challenges in life. A potentially fatal illness that turns their world upside down. Suddenly, the entire focus of their lives changes. What was once taken for granted is now put into question. Some people have to endure great difficulties when it comes to shidduchim. Rejection, disappointment, and loneliness are just some of the issues they have to confront. Others face the test of infertility. Their dream of raising a family is thrown into doubt, and they find it difficult to focus on anything else. To go through even one of these challenges is a daunting task that requires enormous strength and perseverance. One of the hardest parts of any challenge is the feeling that it may never end. What if the illness cannot be cured? What if I never find my zivug? What if I never have a child? Those thoughts can slowly eat away at a person. But for this, Hashem gave us a precious gift. The gift of emunah—an understanding that there is always hope. Even if the doctors do not have a cure, Hashem can create one. Even if the shadchanim have not called for years, Hashem can still send a shidduch. And even if there seems to be no natural path to having a child, Hashem can still make it happen. The length of time that has passed is irrelevant. The moment Hashem decides that salvation should come, it will come. For someone striving to live with emunah, hearing stories of others with similar challenges who were helped brings tremendous chizuk. The proper attitude is not to feel left out and wonder why others were helped while I was not. Rather, it is to say: Just as Hashem helped them, He can help me. These stories are meant to instill strength and hope, to reinforce the belief that salvation can arrive in the blink of an eye. Recently, at the ATIME Shasathon, a man named Yosef Chaim shared how he faced not just one of the challenges mentioned above, but all three: battling a potentially fatal illness, struggling with shidduchim, and confronting infertility. The odds were stacked against him on every front, yet his emunah and inner strength allowed him to grow through them. He was diagnosed with a tumor. After a ten-hour surgery to remove it, his brain had forgotten how to walk. He was left immobile. After enduring infections and additional surgeries, he relearned how to walk—but then the tumor returned. Again and again it came back. He underwent five surgeries and extensive chemotherapy. As a side effect of the multiple operations, doctors told him he would never be able to walk again. When the tumor returned once more, they decided to try something new—a medication recently developed for a different form of cancer. Miraculously, it worked. Against all odds, the Borei Refu'ot granted him a new lease on life. During that same period, his mother was diagnosed with a similar form of cancer, and lo aleinu, she passed away from it. After losing his ability to walk and then losing his mother, Yosef Chaim went to receive chizuk from Rav Shmuel Kamenetsky. He asked how we can say that Hashem is malei rachamim—filled with mercy—when his life felt like the opposite of mercy. After a few minutes of silence, the Rav answered gently: Hashem being merciful is a reality. That is who He is. There is nothing but mercy when it comes to Hashem. If we do not see it, it is only because we are unable to understand Him. Those words gave Yosef Chaim tremendous chizuk. Shidduchim were naturally difficult for someone confined to a wheelchair. To make matters even harder, doctors told him that in all probability he would not be able to have children. But the Mezaveg Zivugim has already prepared a match for every person, and when Hashem wants it to happen, it will happen. Yosef Chaim was set up on a shidduch, and it progressed beautifully. His rabbi advised him to disclose the infertility concern on the fourth date. Remarkably, she agreed to continue. Baruch Hashem, they were married. Eventually, with Hashem's help—and with ATIME serving as the messenger—against all odds, they became the proud parents of a baby boy. Although Yosef Chaim endured so many struggles, he witnessed miracle after miracle, as Hashem guided him through each one. Everyone can be healed. Everyone can get married. Everyone can have children. We must always maintain hope and continue praying to HaKadosh Baruch Hu to help us through all of our challenges.
Rav Chelbo relates that he saw Rav Huna roll the mezuza from the word "echad" toward the word "shema" and format the paragraphs as setumot (closed). This practice is questioned by a braita where Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar notes that Rabbi Meir wrote mezuzot on duchsustos with margins at the top and bottom and formatted the paragraphs as petuchot (open). Rabbi Meir's reasoning was that the paragraphs are not adjacent in the Torah text itself. Since Rav (Rav Huna's teacher) rules in accordance with Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, that raises a difficulty on Rav Huna's practice. To resolve the difficulty, it is suggested that Rav only ruled like Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar regarding the margins. Abaye further supports this resolution by showing that Rav gives weight to local custom, and the established custom is to write them setumot. The Gemara brings an example to show that Rav gave weight to the established custom from a statement he made regarding use of a sandal for chalitzah, noting that even the testimony of the prophet Eliyahu would not overturn a practice the people have already adopted to use a sandal. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers an alternative explanation for the difficulty on Rav Huna. He explains Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar's position as being that while it is a mitzva (ideal) to make them setumot, if they were written petuchot, it would be valid; he reads the words in the braita as "even petuchot." Support for Rav Nachman is brought from a braita stating that a worn-out Sefer Torah or tefillin cannot be repurposed into a mezuza because one does not "lower" an object from a higher level of sanctity to a lower one. From the reason given in the braita, one can infer that if it were not a matter of "lowering" in sanctity, it could be repurposed. This would prove that setumot could be used, as those sections are setumot in a Sefer Torah. However, this suggested proof is rejected. The Gemara raises two other difficulties on the inference that, but for the issue of "lowering" sanctity, a Sefer Torah or tefillin could be repurposed for a mezuza. The first is that tefillin are written on klaf on the side facing the flesh, while a mezuza is written on duchsustos on the side facing the hair. The second difficulty is that a mezuza requires lines (sirtut), while tefillin do not. Both difficulties are resolved. Rav Chelbo further observes that Rav Huna would not sit on a bed while a Sefer Torah was resting upon it, opting instead to place the Torah on an inverted vessel on the ground. However, Rabba bar bar Hana, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, permits sitting on the same bed as a Torah. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel states that a mezuza written in a "letter" (iggeret) format is invalid, as it requires the formal writing style of a Sefer. He also rules that hanging a mezuza on a stick or placing it behind a door is invalid and even "dangerous," as it must be fixed "on your gates." Shmuel specifies that the mezuza must be placed within the hollow of the doorway.
Ravin, the son of Chinina, said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak each identify a possible case where Rabbi Chanina ruled like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. One suggests it was regarding how to measure 40 se'ah in a large box for purposes of impurity. The other suggests it was regarding the stringent ruling of the impurity of liquids - specifically, to which liquids this unique type of impurity extends. The Gemara brings a situation where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri mixed untithed produce with tithed produce and was told by Rabbi Tarfon to buy produce from the market to tithe upon it. In a different version, Rabbi Tarfon told him to buy produce from non-Jews. This advice is analyzed through two lenses: whether a market purchase is considered tithed by Torah law because most am ha'aretz tithe, or whether land ownership by non-Jews in Israel removes the Torah obligation of tithing the produce. Rav Papa confirms to Rav Yemar bar Shelamya that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in this specific case. A statement by Rav regarding a tear in the parchment of a Sefer Torah is also analyzed. Rav rules that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, but a tear of three lines may not. This is qualified by Rabba Zuti, who distinguished between "new" and "old" parchment, which is defined not by age but by whether or not it was processed with gall. Furthermore, the sewing must be done with sinews (gidin) and not plain thread. A question is left unresolved regarding whether these measurements apply if the tear occurs between columns or between lines. Regarding the writing of a mezuza, Rav Chananel in the name of Rav states that if it is written with two words on a line, it is valid. Rav Nachman explains that it can be written like a shira (song) - for example, two words, then three, then one. When questioned by a braita, he distinguishes between the requirements of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The Gemara clarifies that while a mezuza can be written in shira format, it must not be formatted like a "tent" or a "tail" (narrowing or widening). There is a discussion regarding the final words of the mezuza, "al ha'aretz." Should they be placed at the end of the line or at the beginning? The two views reflect different symbolic meanings: one highlights the height of heaven above the earth, while the other highlights the distance between them. Rav Chelbo mentions Rav Huna, who would roll the mezuza scroll from the end to the beginning and made the paragraphs "closed" (setumot). This is challenged by a ruling of Rabbi Meir, who made the paragraph breaks "open" (petuchot).
Ravin, the son of Chinina, said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. Rav Papa and Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak each identify a possible case where Rabbi Chanina ruled like Rabbi Shimon Shezuri. One suggests it was regarding how to measure 40 se'ah in a large box for purposes of impurity. The other suggests it was regarding the stringent ruling of the impurity of liquids - specifically, to which liquids this unique type of impurity extends. The Gemara brings a situation where Rabbi Shimon Shezuri mixed untithed produce with tithed produce and was told by Rabbi Tarfon to buy produce from the market to tithe upon it. In a different version, Rabbi Tarfon told him to buy produce from non-Jews. This advice is analyzed through two lenses: whether a market purchase is considered tithed by Torah law because most am ha'aretz tithe, or whether land ownership by non-Jews in Israel removes the Torah obligation of tithing the produce. Rav Papa confirms to Rav Yemar bar Shelamya that the halakha follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri even in this specific case. A statement by Rav regarding a tear in the parchment of a Sefer Torah is also analyzed. Rav rules that a tear spanning two lines may be sewn, but a tear of three lines may not. This is qualified by Rabba Zuti, who distinguished between "new" and "old" parchment, which is defined not by age but by whether or not it was processed with gall. Furthermore, the sewing must be done with sinews (gidin) and not plain thread. A question is left unresolved regarding whether these measurements apply if the tear occurs between columns or between lines. Regarding the writing of a mezuza, Rav Chananel in the name of Rav states that if it is written with two words on a line, it is valid. Rav Nachman explains that it can be written like a shira (song) - for example, two words, then three, then one. When questioned by a braita, he distinguishes between the requirements of a Sefer Torah and a mezuza. The Gemara clarifies that while a mezuza can be written in shira format, it must not be formatted like a "tent" or a "tail" (narrowing or widening). There is a discussion regarding the final words of the mezuza, "al ha'aretz." Should they be placed at the end of the line or at the beginning? The two views reflect different symbolic meanings: one highlights the height of heaven above the earth, while the other highlights the distance between them. Rav Chelbo mentions Rav Huna, who would roll the mezuza scroll from the end to the beginning and made the paragraphs "closed" (setumot). This is challenged by a ruling of Rabbi Meir, who made the paragraph breaks "open" (petuchot).
Rav makes a statement that is contradicted by a braita. He says that the last page of a Sefer Torah can end in the middle of the page, while a braita says it must finish at the end. After trying to reconcile Rav's position with the braita by limiting it to a Chumash (a parchment containing only one book of the Torah) and not a full Sefer Torah, the Gemara questions this from another statement of Rav (brought by Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal). There are two versions of the explanation for Rav's second statement, which may affect whether his position can be reconciled with the braita and whether one needs or is permitted to finish the last line of the Torah in the middle of the line. Two other statements of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal in the name of Rav are brought regarding the Torah. The first discusses a specific rule regarding the last eight verses of the Torah describing Moshe's death: an individual reads them in a shul. There is a debate among the commentaries regarding the meaning of this rule. Initially, it is suggested that this rule follows the view that Yehoshua wrote these verses, but the Gemara concludes it can also be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, who held that Moshe wrote them b'dema. The second statement is that one who buys a Sefer Torah in the market does not fulfill the mitzva in the proper manner, as ideally one should write a Sefer Torah rather than buy it. A piece of parchment used in a Sefer Torah can contain between three and eight columns. A column should include approximately 30 letters. However, there are different rules regarding the last page of the Torah. How many letters can be added in the margin if needed, and under what circumstances? If one omits the name of God, how can this be fixed? There are five tannaitic opinions, ranging from no solution to scraping the ink of a different word and inserting God's name there (placing the other word between the lines) to even allowing half the name of God to be added between the lines. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's opinion is that the name of God can be added between the lines, but only if it is the whole name. Ravin son of Chinina said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. The Gemara tries to establish what "this" issue is. Each time a possibility is suggested, starting with our sugya, it is rejected because others also issued rulings, and when the Gemara listed who ruled like whom, Ravin bar Chinina and rabbi Chanina did not appear there.
Rav makes a statement that is contradicted by a braita. He says that the last page of a Sefer Torah can end in the middle of the page, while a braita says it must finish at the end. After trying to reconcile Rav's position with the braita by limiting it to a Chumash (a parchment containing only one book of the Torah) and not a full Sefer Torah, the Gemara questions this from another statement of Rav (brought by Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal). There are two versions of the explanation for Rav's second statement, which may affect whether his position can be reconciled with the braita and whether one needs or is permitted to finish the last line of the Torah in the middle of the line. Two other statements of Rabbi Yehoshua bar Aba in the name of Rav Gidal in the name of Rav are brought regarding the Torah. The first discusses a specific rule regarding the last eight verses of the Torah describing Moshe's death: an individual reads them in a shul. There is a debate among the commentaries regarding the meaning of this rule. Initially, it is suggested that this rule follows the view that Yehoshua wrote these verses, but the Gemara concludes it can also be explained according to Rabbi Shimon, who held that Moshe wrote them b'dema. The second statement is that one who buys a Sefer Torah in the market does not fulfill the mitzva in the proper manner, as ideally one should write a Sefer Torah rather than buy it. A piece of parchment used in a Sefer Torah can contain between three and eight columns. A column should include approximately 30 letters. However, there are different rules regarding the last page of the Torah. How many letters can be added in the margin if needed, and under what circumstances? If one omits the name of God, how can this be fixed? There are five tannaitic opinions, ranging from no solution to scraping the ink of a different word and inserting God's name there (placing the other word between the lines) to even allowing half the name of God to be added between the lines. Rabbi Shimon Shezuri's opinion is that the name of God can be added between the lines, but only if it is the whole name. Ravin son of Chinina said in the name of Ulla in the name of Rabbi Chanina that the law follows Rabbi Shimon Shezuri in "this" issue and anywhere else he issued a ruling. The Gemara tries to establish what "this" issue is. Each time a possibility is suggested, starting with our sugya, it is rejected because others also issued rulings, and when the Gemara listed who ruled like whom, Ravin bar Chinina and rabbi Chanina did not appear there.
The Menora in the Temple featured various decorative parts, including goblets, knobs, and flowers. The Gemara details the quantity of each and their specific placement on the Menora. Rav explained that the Menora's height was nine handbreadths from the point where the lowest branches met. The text describes the gold used for the Menora as "michlot zahav." Rabbi Ami interpreted this phrase to mean that all the refined gold from King Solomon's era was used for its construction. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani explained that the Menora is called "tehora" (pure) because it was shown to Moshe as a heavenly image. The Gemara explores why this same explanation is not applied to the "shulchan hatehora" (the pure table) used for the showbread; in that case, the phrase indicates that the table could potentially become impure. There were other items as well that God had to show Moshe, as they were difficult for him to grasp. The Mishna explains that the two parshiot (sections) in the mezuza are essential. Initially, it is assumed this refers to the small tip of the letter yud (kotzo shel yud), but this is rejected as being obvious. Instead, the Gemara suggests it serves to disqualify a mezuza if its letters are touching one another. Various rabbis discuss different issues regarding the letters hey and yud and whether or not certain formations disqualify them. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that when Moshe went to receive the Torah, he found God attaching crowns to the letters. When Moshe asked why, God showed him Rabbi Akiva, who was extrapolating heaps of laws from every crown. Moshe was taken aback, as he did not understand Rabbi Akiva's teachings. However, once he heard Rabbi Akiva answer a student that a certain law was "a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai," Moshe was relieved. Yet, when he asked God what the reward would be for such a great scholar, God showed him Rabbi Akiva's tragic death, and Moshe was once again disturbed. In both instances, God told Moshe, "Be silent, for this is My decree." Seven specific letters are adorned with three crowns. There were also special requirements for writing the letters yud and chet, with explanations provided for each. The rabbis discuss in which situations mistakes in a Sefer Torah can be corrected and in which situations they cannot.
The Menora in the Temple featured various decorative parts, including goblets, knobs, and flowers. The Gemara details the quantity of each and their specific placement on the Menora. Rav explained that the Menora's height was nine handbreadths from the point where the lowest branches met. The text describes the gold used for the Menora as "michlot zahav." Rabbi Ami interpreted this phrase to mean that all the refined gold from King Solomon's era was used for its construction. Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani explained that the Menora is called "tehora" (pure) because it was shown to Moshe as a heavenly image. The Gemara explores why this same explanation is not applied to the "shulchan hatehora" (the pure table) used for the showbread; in that case, the phrase indicates that the table could potentially become impure. There were other items as well that God had to show Moshe, as they were difficult for him to grasp. The Mishna explains that the two parshiot (sections) in the mezuza are essential. Initially, it is assumed this refers to the small tip of the letter yud (kotzo shel yud), but this is rejected as being obvious. Instead, the Gemara suggests it serves to disqualify a mezuza if its letters are touching one another. Various rabbis discuss different issues regarding the letters hey and yud and whether or not certain formations disqualify them. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Rav that when Moshe went to receive the Torah, he found God attaching crowns to the letters. When Moshe asked why, God showed him Rabbi Akiva, who was extrapolating heaps of laws from every crown. Moshe was taken aback, as he did not understand Rabbi Akiva's teachings. However, once he heard Rabbi Akiva answer a student that a certain law was "a halakha given to Moshe at Sinai," Moshe was relieved. Yet, when he asked God what the reward would be for such a great scholar, God showed him Rabbi Akiva's tragic death, and Moshe was once again disturbed. In both instances, God told Moshe, "Be silent, for this is My decree." Seven specific letters are adorned with three crowns. There were also special requirements for writing the letters yud and chet, with explanations provided for each. The rabbis discuss in which situations mistakes in a Sefer Torah can be corrected and in which situations they cannot.
How does coming to Israel for yeshiva and seminary affect a student's mental health? When do difficult emotional feelings cross the line from normal struggles to something that should be addressed? Should a student who believes another is emotionally unstable report that behavior to the school administration? What are the key similarities and differences in how boys and girls experience stress, anxiety, depression, or other emotional pressures? 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 Yitzchak Schwartz – Posek, Rosh Yeshiva & Rav, Givat Ze'ev, Israel – 8:50 with Dr. Jacob Freedman – psychiatrist, speaker and author – 29:43 with Dr. Shmuel Harris – psychiatrist, author and founder and director of Machon Dvir Institute, Yerushalayim – 29:43 with Rabbi Dr. Dovid Fox – Dayan, forensic and clinical psychologist, Director of Crisis and Trauma Services for Chai Lifeline – 1:02:35 with Mrs. Debbie Fox – clinical social worker and author of Seminary Savvy – 1:02:35 Conclusions and takeaways – 1:40:40 מראי מקומות
If the remainder of the mincha offering becomes impure, lost, or burned before the kometz is offered, according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua's approaches regarding sacrifices, one can explain what they would each hold on whether the kometz may still be burned. In the case of animal sacrifices, Rabbi Eliezer permits the sprinkling of the blood even if there is no meat left, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua forbids it. Rav explains that Rabbi Yehoshua's restriction only applies if the entire remainder is lost; however, if even a portion remains, the kometz may be burned. This aligns with his view on animal sacrifices - that if even an olive-bulk of meat or sacrificial fats remains, the blood may be sprinkled. Does the kometz require a sacred vessel after being taken from the meal offering, or can it be brought by hand to the altar? Rabbi Shimon and the Sages differ on this requirement, with Rabbi Shimon ruling that a vessel is not required at this stage. The Gemara explores three different approaches to explain the underlying logic of Rabbi Shimon's lenient view, bringing braitot to challenge the different opinions. If the kometz is split into two parts, the Mishna rules that it can be burned in two separate actions. However, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it can be split into more than two parts. What is the basis of their debate? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina disagree about the exact point at which the burning of the kometz renders the remainder permitted for consumption.
If the remainder of the mincha offering becomes impure, lost, or burned before the kometz is offered, according to Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua's approaches regarding sacrifices, one can explain what they would each hold on whether the kometz may still be burned. In the case of animal sacrifices, Rabbi Eliezer permits the sprinkling of the blood even if there is no meat left, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua forbids it. Rav explains that Rabbi Yehoshua's restriction only applies if the entire remainder is lost; however, if even a portion remains, the kometz may be burned. This aligns with his view on animal sacrifices - that if even an olive-bulk of meat or sacrificial fats remains, the blood may be sprinkled. Does the kometz require a sacred vessel after being taken from the meal offering, or can it be brought by hand to the altar? Rabbi Shimon and the Sages differ on this requirement, with Rabbi Shimon ruling that a vessel is not required at this stage. The Gemara explores three different approaches to explain the underlying logic of Rabbi Shimon's lenient view, bringing braitot to challenge the different opinions. If the kometz is split into two parts, the Mishna rules that it can be burned in two separate actions. However, Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi disagree about whether it can be split into more than two parts. What is the basis of their debate? Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Chanina disagree about the exact point at which the burning of the kometz renders the remainder permitted for consumption.
Episode 182 Monday, January 26, 2026 Check us out on BOOKS ARE MY PEOPLE, releasing February 9 Join us as we try an Olympic-level craft project, cooking and reading during the Olympics February 6 to 22, 2026 On the Needles 4:12 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley-- DONE!! Avena by Jennifer Steingass, Yarnaceous Fibers Brontosaurus DK in Starbies and Cup of Cheer minis – DONE!! Contradict Me MKAL by Maggie Fangmann, Yarnaceous Fibers Brontosaurus DK in Starbies and Cup of Cheer minis – DONE!! On the Easel 13:03 100-Day composition studies Staffordshire stationery set–in progress!! Exploring R&F drawing oils and pigment sticks On the Table 18:03 Palak khichdi (spinach, rice and red lentils) from Hetty Lui McKinnon broccoli + pork with soy + hot honey - by Julia Turshen https://yossyarefi.substack.com/p/vanilla-corn-cake-with-blueberry Citrus Salad from Good Things by Samin Nosrat (allll the citrus!!) Helping my boys figure out leftover ingredient puzzles. On the Nightstand 25:59 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! Maid for Each Other by Lynn Painter History Lessons by Zoe B. Wallbrook Brigands and Breadknives by Travis Baldree Ocean's Godori by Elaine U. Cho Convenience Store Woman by Sayaka Murata, trans by Ginny Tapley Takemori Sky Daddy by Kate Folk The Correspondent by Virginia Evans (my JOYful book for January) The Art Spy by Michelle Young (non-fiction) Art Day by Day ed. Alex Johnson (non-fiction, anthology)
After months of waiting and speculation, details about the All-American Halftime Show are finally out. Kid Rock joins the program to announce his headline role, and discuss his fellow performers Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, and Gabby Barrett. Plus, TPUSA Enterprise director Nick Cocoa announces a plan to bring Club America chapters to every Montana high school, and Luke Rosiak exposes government waste, audit obstruction, and corruption tied to the African Development Foundation. Be sure to catch the All-America Halftime Show Feb. 8 on Rumble, RAV, X, TBN, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this Jewish Inspiration Podcast episode (Day 121), Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe concludes the Gate of Falsehood (Sheker) from Orchos Tzaddikim, detailing the final categories of liars and emphasizing the Torah's command to distance oneself from all falsehood ("midvar sheker tirchak").The rabbi reviews the nine types of falsehood:Obvious lies, subtle forgeries, sophisticated rationalizations."White lies" (inconsequential exaggerations) that curry favor or lower guards.Lies to steal potential benefit (e.g., poaching clients).Distorting heard facts for no gain/damage.False promises/assurances (e.g., "I'll give you this" without intent).Leading someone to trust falsely, then breaking it (breaking a covenant-like bond).Taking praise for unpossessed qualities (even true praise can be misused).Lies about what was heard, changing facts to suit needs.Key lessons: Falsehood distances one from Hashem (Emet/truth); even "harmless" lies train the tongue for worse deception. Rav's story warns against teaching children to reverse words—even for "good" reasons—as it habituates falsehood. Punishment varies by severity, but all lies harm soul and others. The chapter ends urging vigilance: purge traits that rationalize lies to attain pure truth.Recorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on July 15, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on February 3, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content. _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life. To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #WhiteLies, #Truth, #Lies, #Rationalizations, #Sheker, #FalsePromises ★ Support this podcast ★
In this Jewish Inspiration Podcast episode (Day 121), Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe concludes the Gate of Falsehood (Sheker) from Orchos Tzaddikim, detailing the final categories of liars and emphasizing the Torah's command to distance oneself from all falsehood ("midvar sheker tirchak").The rabbi reviews the nine types of falsehood:Obvious lies, subtle forgeries, sophisticated rationalizations."White lies" (inconsequential exaggerations) that curry favor or lower guards.Lies to steal potential benefit (e.g., poaching clients).Distorting heard facts for no gain/damage.False promises/assurances (e.g., "I'll give you this" without intent).Leading someone to trust falsely, then breaking it (breaking a covenant-like bond).Taking praise for unpossessed qualities (even true praise can be misused).Lies about what was heard, changing facts to suit needs.Key lessons: Falsehood distances one from Hashem (Emet/truth); even "harmless" lies train the tongue for worse deception. Rav's story warns against teaching children to reverse words—even for "good" reasons—as it habituates falsehood. Punishment varies by severity, but all lies harm soul and others. The chapter ends urging vigilance: purge traits that rationalize lies to attain pure truth.Recorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on July 15, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on February 3, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content. _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life. To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.org_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #WhiteLies, #Truth, #Lies, #Rationalizations, #Sheker, #FalsePromises ★ Support this podcast ★
After months of waiting and speculation, details about the All-American Halftime Show are finally out. Kid Rock joins the program to announce his headline role, and discuss his fellow performers Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, and Gabby Barrett. Plus, TPUSA Enterprise director Nick Cocoa announces a plan to bring Club America chapters to every Montana high school, and Luke Rosiak exposes government waste, audit obstruction, and corruption tied to the African Development Foundation. Be sure to catch the All-America Halftime Show Feb. 8 on Rumble, RAV, X, TBN, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Rav Mordechai reinstates the original interpretation of Shmuel's limitation on the Mishna in Shekalim 7:7 - namely, that the court permitted the kohanim to use Temple salt for salting their sacrifices (for burning on the altar) but not for salting the meat of the sacrifices for consumption. This ruling of the court follows Ben Buchri's opinion that kohanim are not obligated to pay the half-shekel (machatzit hashekel) used to fund communal items in the Temple. Since they did not contribute to the fund, one might have assumed they were ineligible to benefit from Temple salt; therefore, the court issued a specific stipulation to permit it. The Mishna in Shekalim also mentions that the kohanim could use wood from the Temple for their private sacrifices. The source for this is derived from Vayikra 1:8, which mentions the wood "which is on the fire on the altar." The phrase "on the altar" is considered superfluous, indicating that the wood shares the same status as the altar itself; just as the altar is built from communal property, so too the wood must be communal. This teaching establishes that individuals are not required to bring wood from their own homes for their voluntary offerings. Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua defines the altar differently positing that the altar must be built using stones that have never been used. This requirement would also preclude individuals from bringing wood from their own homes. Consequently, the Gemara asks: what is the practical difference between these two opinions? The answer is that the latter opinion requires the wood to be brand new and never previously used, whereas the former does not. If a kometz, which contains one log of oil, is mixed with the mincha of a kohen or a mincha of libations, which contains three log of oil, there is a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda. They disagree on whether the mixture may be burned on the altar or if the blending disqualifies both offerings. The concern is that the oil from the mincha becomes added to the kometz, potentially disqualifying both; the kometz would then contain an excessive amount of oil, while the mincha would be left with an insufficient amount. The Gemara cites a Mishna in Zevachim 77b featuring a debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Yehuda regarding whether two similar substances (min be'mino) can nullify one another. Rabbi Yochanan explains that both parties derive their respective positions from the Yom Kippur service, during which the blood of the bull and the blood of the goat are mixed together. Despite the volume of the bull's blood being significantly greater than that of the goat, the Torah continues to refer to the mixture as both "the blood of the bull" and "the blood of the goat"—indicating that the goat's blood remains distinct and is not nullified. The rabbis derive a broad principle from this: items designated for the altar never nullify one another, regardless of their type. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda derives a different principle: blood does not nullify blood because they are the same type of substance (min be'mino). The Gemara raises challenges against both derivations, and they are left unresolved. Rabbi Yehuda's opinion in our Mishna appears to contradict his ruling in the Mishna in Zevachim; if two similar substances (min be'mino) do not nullify each other, then the oil of the mincha should not be nullified by (or absorbed into) the kometz. Rava resolves this contradiction by explaining that this case is an exception, as it is considered a situation where one substance "adds to" the other rather than merely mixing with it.
Rav Huna challenges Rav about whether salt is required for the grain-offering, even though it isn't presented in the Torah with double-language (as other requirements are). Which opens the discussion of the salt in new ways. Also, the Torah verse about salt and the grain-offering makes it clear that salt is essential to the offering. In contrast, in the case of the grain-offering, to the blood on the altar. Plus, a mnemonic to help remember the factors that would nonetheless require salt.
Rav explained that details that are essential (me'akev) are specifically those that are repeated (appear twice) in the text. Rav Huna raises a difficulty on this assertion from the requirement of salting the offering; both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon rule that salting is essential, yet the command does not appear twice. Two answers are suggested to resolve this. Rav Yosef suggests that Rav may hold like the Tanna of our Mishna, who holds that salting is actually not essential. Another possible answer is that salting is a unique exception to the rule because the word "covenant" (brit) appears in the verse, signifying its indispensable status regardless of repetition. The Gemara then raises a difficulty with the premise of the original challenge, noting that the word for salt actually does appear twice in Vayikra 2:13. This is answered by explaining that the repetition in that verse is necessary for specific drashot found in a braita. The braita extrapolates from the verse to teach which sacrificial items require salt and which do not - concluding that while most offerings require it, wood and blood do not. After quoting the brraita in its entirety, the Gemara delves into the different sections of the text, analyzing each clause to better understand the underlying logic of these inclusions and exclusions.
The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon on whether pouring of the oil of a meal offering requires a kohen is based on different ways of interpreting the verses in Vayikra 2:1-2. The Rabbis maintain that the requirement for a kohen is only mentioned from the act of scooping, or kemitza, allowing a non-kohen to handle the pouring and mixing of the oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, views the connective language in the verse as a link that binds the entire process together, necessitating a kohen for every stage. At first the Gemara suggested that Rabbi Shimon's reasoning was based on "a phrase can relate to both the upcoming and previous action," but after showing that in a different issue, Rabbi Shimon did not employ that principle, they explain the "vav"("and") connects the previous section to the kohen. Rav explains that if the words torah and chukka appear in a verse, that signifies that a failure to perform a detail exactly as described invalidates the entire offering. Through a series of challenges involving the nazir, the metzora, and the service of Yom Kippur, the Gemara refines this: if either term is employed, it indicates it is an essential detail. However, after raising a difficulty from all sacrifices, Rav's statement is further refined: the term chukka is the primary indicator of indispensability, whereas torah on its own is not. Repetition serves as another marker of necessity in the eyes of Rav, who argues that when the Torah returns to a subject multiple times, it is to emphasize that the detail is essential. This leads to a clash with Shmuel about whether or not is it essential that the scooping (kemitza) be performed by hand. Rav considers the method essential because it is repeated in the context of the Tabernacle's inauguration. Shmuel, however, holds that a one-time historical event is not a binding source for future generations. A difficulty is raised against the principle of Rav that if something is repeated, it is indispensable, as the act of hagasha, bringing the mincha offering to the Altar, is repeated and yet is listed in the Mishna as not essential. The Gemara responds by explaining that the second mention is needed for a different purpose – to pinpoint the exact location on the Altar where the mincha offering is to be brought.
The sharp scholars (charifei) of Pumbedita argue that one burning can create pigul for another. Specifically, if one burns the kometz (handful) with the intention to burn the levona (frankincense) outside its designated time, it becomes pigul. They explain that even the Rabbis - who generally hold that a pigul thought during only half of a permitting act (matir) is ineffective - would agree here, because the levona was included in the person's thoughts. Rava supports this from the general rule in the Mishna, however, his proof is rejected as it is inconclusive. Rav Hisda, however, cites Rav to argue that one burning cannot create pigul for another. He reasons that since the kometz is not the permitting agent (matir) for the levona, an intention concerning burning the levona during the burning of the kometz is irrelevant. A proof is brought for this from a case involving the two lambs of Shavuot, but it is countered by distinguishing between items in separate vessels versus items in the same vessel. Rav Hamnuna presents a unique case that he considers of immense value, where the pigul thought "spreads" through the entire process. If one burns the kometz with intent to burn the levona tomorrow, and with intent to eat the shirayim (remnants) tomorrow, the offering is pigul. This is because the thoughts combined eventually cover both the completion of the permitting acts and the consumption of the remnants. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a braita regarding a case that all agree on. At first it seems they all agree that there is pigul even if the pigul thought is only in one matir. However, since it is clear that is not the case, they edit the braita to read "pasul" instead of "pigul," as all agree that it is disqualified, even if it is not necessarily pigul. The third chapter begins with a Mishna discussing intentions regarding items not normally meant for that specific use. If one has intent during the kometz service to eat something not usually eaten (like the kometz itself) or to burn something not usually burned (like the remnants), the rabbis rule the offering valid, while Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it. Additionally, if the intention involves a quantity less than an olive-bulk, or if it combines half an olive-bulk of eating and half an olive-bulk of burning, it remains valid because eating and burning do not combine to reach the required measure for pigul. Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the double expression in the verse: "ve'im he'achol ye'achel" (and if it should surely be eaten). He understands this to include two types of "eating": human consumption and the consumption of the altar (burning). Therefore, an intention to switch these roles - intending to eat what is meant for the fire - is a valid disqualifying thought. The rabbis who disagree extrapolate that verse in a different manner, either to include a case of one who uses the language of eating instead of burning when having a pigul intent, or to derive the requisite amount of burning from the requisite amount for eating - an olive-bulk - meaning one who has a thought to burn less than an olive-bulk beyond its given time will not render the offering pigul. Rabbi Zeira questions Rav Asi that if Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the Torah, it should carry the penalty of karet, and yet Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that is does not. Rav Asi answer that there is a Tannaitic dispute regarding the nature of Rabbi Eliezer's disqualification: one view holds it is a Torah-level disqualification punishable by karet, while another suggests it is a Rabbinic disqualification and he brings a braita to support this. The braita discusses one who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent to drink the blood tomorrow or to burn the meat tomorrow. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies these cases, while the rabbis validate them. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar disagree in a case where one's intent was to leave the blood for tomorrow. Rabbi Yehuda says it is disqualified while Rabbi Elazar says that the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree about this as well. In trying to assess the point of disagreement between Rabbis Yehuda and Elazar, they suggest that it is on their understanding of Rabbi Eliezer's position and whether he views these cases as disqualified (rabbinic) or as pigul (Torah law, with karet). However, this understanding of the braita is rejected.
Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether the meal offering can become pigul if the pigul thought was only during part of the permitting act (matir), such as during the burning of the kometz, but not the burning of the frankincense, or the slaughtering of one sheep of the two sheep offerings on Shavuot. Rabbi Meir holds that it is pigul, while the rabbis do not. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding this debate. Rav holds that if the first action included a pigul thought, while the second was performed in silence, it is pigul, even according to the rabbis, as the second action follows the first and is considered to have been performed with the same thought. Shmuel disagrees and holds that silence following a pigul thought does not render the item pigul according to the rabbis, who require pigul in both actions that are considered a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's position from two different sources from the Tosefta. The first is resolved but the second is only partially resolved, i.e., according to one position in a different debate. A question is raised on the Tosefta quoted previously. If one is not punished by karet in a case of pigul unless the rest of the sacrifice was brought properly, in the case of the sacrifice on Yom Kippur, if one had a pigul thought while sprinkling the first set of blood, but not the next, how could Rabbi Meir call this pigul as the next sets of blood are considered like sprinkling water, as the sacrifice is already disqualified since the earlier sprinkling of blood is invalid. Raba and Rava each provide solutions to this problem. If one had a pigul thought while bringing the kometz to the altar, is that considered half a matir, as also the frankincense needs to be brought to the altar? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree. Rabbi Yochanan views it like taking the kometz, and it is therefore considered a whole matir. He holds that bringing it to the altar is not actually a matir, but an important part of the service and therefore a pigul thought will disqualify the sacrifice even if there is a parallel action (bringing the frankincense to the altar) that is not performed with a pigul thought. Reish Lakish views it like the burning of the kometz and is only half a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan, from our Mishna and a braita, and are both resolved, and one against Reish Lakish which is left unresolved. If one burned a tiny amount with a thought to eat a tiny amount beyond its designated time, and continually does this until the whole thing is burned and the thoughts cover the whole remainder, is it pigul. Three rabbis disagree – one says it's pigul, one says it is disqualified and the third says it's permitted. At first they think they each are based on a different opinion – Rabbi Meir, the rabbis and Rebbi. But this suggestion is rejected and it is explained to be based on whether one views a burning of a tiny amount as a proper act of burning and the eating of a tiny amount as a proper act of eating.
President Trump stunned the world over the weekend with a daring raid that captured Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro without a single American casualty. It was an impressive victory, but how can the Administration translate into a long-term MAGA political win? Rep. Andy Biggs discusses that along with his continuing run for Arizona governor, and RAV's David Zere gives an update from the courthouse where Maduro is facing charges. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
