Podcasts about Rav

What are the risks and halachic concerns of a mixed gender workplace? Should conversations be limited to only what's necessary for work? Can first names be used? What if a woman extends her hand to shake hands with a man? How can couples protect their shalom bayis when one spouse works in a mixed environment? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job Rabbi Moshe Hauer ZT”L with Rabbi Dr. Josh Joseph – Executive Vice President & Chief Operating Officer, OU – 12:44 with Rabbi Avi Berman – Executive Director of OU Israel – 22:09 with Rabbi Chaim Gottesman – close friend and neighbor of Rabbi Hauer for 30+ years – 35:30 Men & Women in a Mixed Workplace with Rabbi Dr. Yitzchak Breitowitz – posek, Rav and Senior Lecturer at Yeshivas Ohr Somayach – 50:32 with Charlie Harary – Business Executive and author of “Unlocking Greatness” – 1:26:10 with Rabbi Naftali Horowitz – Managing Director at Morgan Stanley and author of “You Revealed” – 1:26:10 with Harry Rothenberg, Esq. – partner at The Rothenberg Law Firm LLP (InjuryLawyer.com) and lecturer – 1:26:10 Conclusions and takeaways – 2:29:54 מראי מקומות   

Episode 175 October 15, 2025   HAPPY 7TH ANNIVERSARY! On the Needles ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info     Paul klee- saw in vienna! Flax worsted Fleetwood Cortney loved: the succulent squares–eager for tote bag collaboration. And the Paul Klee sweater. On the Easel 4:11   More variety, darker colors and backgrounds Grey parrot with red in March   Ceramics   Cortney loved: delving into floral paintings, floral ceramics, growing flowers…also–the kryptonite illustration, and Monica's Viennese cake collection. On the Table 7:11   Cocktail club   Empty nest= one gf veg meal!    Double swiss chicken cutlets   Cortney loved: cocktail club–so inspiring! And teaching my boys how to cook. On the Nightstand 12:49 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! Weird books are the best!   Endling by Maria Reva On the Calculation of Volume by Solvej Balle Orbital by Samatha Harvey Under the Eye of the Big Bird by Hiromi Kawakami   Cortney loved: catching up with the LouisePenny Three Pines series. All the floral volumes this spring (great resources!), and the Eco-lit list in our Bookshop.org site.

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

In the Torah verse regarding the purification of the leper (Vayikra 14:17), the word “right” appears three times - once in reference to the hand, once to the foot, and once to the ear. Rava explains that each mention teaches the requirement to use the right hand in a different ritual: one for kemitza (taking a handful of flour) in meal offerings, one for chalitza (the release ceremony of levirate marriage), and one for piercing the ear of a Jewish slave. According to Rabba bar bar Hanna, quoting Rabbi Yochanan, wherever the Torah uses the term “kohen,” the action must be performed with the right hand. Based on this, Rava’s drasha regarding kemitza teaches that not only the taking of the kometz (handful) must be done with the right hand, but also its placement into the kli sharet (sanctified vessel). Rabbi Shimon, who either does not require this part of the process or does not require it to be done with the right hand, agrees that the kemitza itself must be performed with the right hand, as derived from Vayikra 6:10, which compares the meal offering to the sin offering. Therefore, Rava’s interpretation applies specifically to the meal offering of a sinner, brought as part of a sliding scale offering. The Mishna rules that if the blood spills directly onto the floor from the animal, without first being collected in a sanctified vessel, the blood is disqualified. A braita teaches that the blood to be collected must be the spurting blood from the act of slaughter - not blood from a cut, nor residual blood that flows after most of the blood has exited the animal. The blood must flow directly from the animal into the kli sharet, from which it will be sprinkled on the altar. These laws are derived from Vayikra 4:5, in the context of the sin offering of the Kohen Gadol. Rav rules that all of the blood must be collected, based on Vayikra 4:7. According to Shmuel, the knife must be lifted immediately after slaughter to prevent blood from dripping off the knife into the vessel, since the blood must come directly from the animal. Rav Chisda and Rabbi Yochanan explain that the animal’s throat must be held directly over the vessel to ensure the blood flows straight into it. Rabbi Asi posed a question to Rabbi Yochanan regarding the airspace above a vessel. The Gemara brings three versions of the question and Rabbi Yochanan’s response: If the bottom of the vessel broke before the blood reached it, but the blood had already entered the vessel’s airspace, does this count as if the blood had reached the vessel? If so, the blood could be collected from the floor and used on the altar. To answer the question, Rabbi Yochanan cited a braita regarding a barrel into which fresh water streamed into its airspace, disqualifying it for use in the red heifer purification waters, as it is considered as though the water entered the vessel. However, this comparison is problematic, since the red heifer case does not involve a broken vessel. To justify the citation, the Gemara reframes the question as a two-pronged inquiry. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was drawn from the aforementioned braita. The question was about the barrel, and the answer was derived from the laws of sacrificial blood, which must reach the vessel directly. Since the blood passes through the airspace first, this implies that the airspace is treated as part of the vessel. If the animal becomes blemished after slaughter but before the blood is collected, brought to the altar, or poured, the blood is disqualified. A source is cited from the laws of the sin offering to support this. The Gemara attempts to extend this ruling to offerings of lesser sanctity, such as the Paschal sacrifice, but the proof is ultimately rejected.  

Episode 174 Monday September 22, 2025 On the Needles 5:35 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.  Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info   Succulents 2025 Blanket CAL by Mallory Krall, Hue Loco DK in ??   SSAL Delectable Collectible Socks by Stephen West, Dark Omen Yarns Sock in Electric Minis (navy, royal, light blue with speckles, cream with speckles, cream)- 2nd sock for PSP   Pop Rock Pullover by Tanis Lavallee, La Bien Aimée singles and Mohair Silk in AVFKW A Day by the Bay   Clapotis ‘24 by Kate Davies, Three Irish Girls Adorn Sock in Ainsley (original 23.8K, sharon mcmahon 3IG) On the Easel 10:12 All the sewing, gardening, & painting…esp work on 2026 calendar. On the Table 18:13 Sheet-Pan Gnocchi with Mushroom Bolognese   my favorite vegetarian sandwich is.... - by Julia Turshen   Pickled potato salad by Casey Elsass from What Can I Bring: How to live your guest life   Secret Menu Dill-Pepperoncini Tuna Salad from Smitten Kitchen   Ottolenghi Spicy Mushroom lasagna Blueberry Cheesecake Phyllo cups Paper airplane cocktail On the Nightstand 31:18 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! Heart Lamp by Banu Mushtaq, trans by Deepa Bhasthi from Kannada  On the Calculation of Volume II by Solvej Balle, trans by Barbara J. Haveland The Other Side of Now by Paige Harbison The Bewitching by Silvia Moreno-Garcia Hemlock & Silver by T. Kingfisher A Witch's Guide to Magical Innkeeping by Sangu Mandanna   The Heaven & Earth Grocery Store by James McBride Project Hail Mary by Andy Weir  

Four distinct verses are cited to teach that a kohen who performs a service in the Temple without wearing the prescribed priestly garments renders the sacrifice invalid. Each verse contributes a unique aspect to this halakha, clarifying different scenarios. A braita further analyzes various garment-related issues—such as garments that are too long or too short, worn out, duplicated (e.g., wearing two pairs of pants), or missing one garment. It distinguishes between cases that invalidate the service and those that do not. However, statements by Shmuel and Rav regarding overly long or short garments appear to contradict the braita, which does not disqualify those cases. These apparent contradictions are addressed and resolved through deeper analysis. Additionally, several drashot are derived from the Torah’s use of the word "bad" in describing the kohen’s clothing. The term is interpreted to mean fine linen, and the derivation of this meaning is explored through textual and linguistic analysis.

Four distinct verses are cited to teach that a kohen who performs a service in the Temple without wearing the prescribed priestly garments renders the sacrifice invalid. Each verse contributes a unique aspect to this halakha, clarifying different scenarios. A braita further analyzes various garment-related issues—such as garments that are too long or too short, worn out, duplicated (e.g., wearing two pairs of pants), or missing one garment. It distinguishes between cases that invalidate the service and those that do not. However, statements by Shmuel and Rav regarding overly long or short garments appear to contradict the braita, which does not disqualify those cases. These apparent contradictions are addressed and resolved through deeper analysis. Additionally, several drashot are derived from the Torah’s use of the word "bad" in describing the kohen’s clothing. The term is interpreted to mean fine linen, and the derivation of this meaning is explored through textual and linguistic analysis.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 09 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Patrick McDonald (writer, director, actor, formerly Smosh, co-host 'Artists on Artists on Artists on Artists', host 'Havin' a Day') picks up a ninety-nine question interview in the Rav-4 and goes on an adventure! Join Patrick and I as we discuss the origin of Smosh's funeral roast sax man, the name Patch, a ghost car theft, the T-Zone, one big cookie, TLC's Vevo, Cool Spot, pets with human names, & backup turtles.⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99 Questions on Instagram!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99 Questions on BlueSky!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠r/99questionspod on Reddit!⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠--ASK ME A QUESTION! The 99 Question Hotline!--732-592-9838 (aka REAL-WAX-VET)⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99questionspod@gmail.com⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠99Q Merch⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠

The Gemara (Yoma 87a) tells that the great sage Rav was once insulted by the local butcher. Over the next several months, Rav waited for the butcher to apologize, but he never did. Finally, on Erev Yom Kippur, Rav decided to go and stand right outside the butcher shop so the butcher would see him. He hoped that if he would stand there, and make it very easy and convenient for the butcher to request forgiveness, he would. The butcher saw Rav standing outside his shop, and he shouted angrily, "I have nothing to say to you!" Not only did he refuse to ask forgiveness, he doubled down, insisting that he had nothing to apologize for. At that moment, a bone from the animal the butcherwas carving darted from the counter into his neck, killing him. The Rabbis of Mussar explain that although the butcher had offended Rav many months earlier, he was punished only now because he squandered the opportunity to apologize and make amends. All people make mistakes, and it is not easy to admit we were wrong and initiate a process of reconciliation. But what's inexcusable is avoiding reconciliation when the opportunity comes right to our doorstep. The butcher was wrong to offend Rav, and he was wrong for not going to request forgiveness – but what sealed his fate was failing to approach Rav when Rav made himself available. This story sheds light on a pronouncement by the prophet Yeshayahu about the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba – the ten-day period from Rosh Hashanah through Yom Kippur. Yeshayahu (55:6) turns to the people and exclaims, "Dirshu Hashem Be'himase'o, Kera'uhu Bi'hyoto Karob" – "Seek out G-d when He is accessible, call upon Him when He is near." Of course, G-d is always "accessible," and He is always "near." In all seasons, at all times of year, and at any time of day, in any circumstance, we can turn to Hashem for help, we can ask Him for forgiveness, and we can ask for whatever it is we need. However, the Gemara (Rosh Hashanah 18a) explains, during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is especially close, and is especially receptive to our sincere prayers. During this period, the prayers recited by an individual have the same power as prayers recited together with a Minyan during the rest of the year. We can only imagine how powerful congregational prayer is during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba! Indeed, Rav Chaim Brim of Jerusalem (1922-2002) would say that spiritual achievements which normally take weeks to attain can be reached in just a few moments during the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. This is a special time, when our prayers and our efforts to repent and improve are particularly effective, many times more than at other times of the year. At first glance, it seems that Yeshayahu is encouraging us and advising us by calling upon us to turn to Hashem during this period of Aseret Yemeh Teshuba. As Hashem is close, it is recommended that we seize this opportunity for prayer and repentance. But in light of the Gemara's story about Rav and the butcher, we might conclude that Yeshayahu isn't just giving advice – he's issuing a stern warning. If Hashem is close, then we must initiate a process of "reconciliation," a process of Teshuba. It's not just a good idea – it's an obligation. We are flawed human beings, and so it is understandable that we will make mistakes. We are not expected to be perfect. And, it is understandable that we will find it difficult to acknowledge our mistakes, to admit wrongdoing, to confess that we've acted improperly and have made bad choices. This is embarrassing and uncomfortable. And, change is always challenging. But even if we could be excused the rest of the year for not making an effort to improve and ask Hashem for forgiveness, we have no excuse during this week, when Hashem specifically comes to us and invites us back. During the Aseret Yemeh Teshuba, Hashem is right here next to us with His arms open. He is ready to forgive us as long as we take the first step by admitting we were wrong and committing to try harder. If we don't seize this opportunity, this period when Teshuba is especially accessible, then we have no more excuses. Let's ensure not to make the butcher's mistake. Let's take full advantage of this special opportunity, and sincerely turn to Hashem in heartfelt prayer and with a firm resolve to improve, to correct our mistakes, and to enhance our relationship with our Father in heaven.

Why does my Lexus have no overdrive? What's the squeak in my Tacoma front end? Using fuel additives or not? 11 F150 slipping 4x4 hubs Transmission fluid change or not? 09 Rav 4 Why does my carburetor lose prime overnight? 82 Ford F700 95 G20 Chevy Van misfire on highway only 75 Caprice could it be cam failure? Cold start only mis 10 Silverado 13 Titan should I do coils and plugs? 06 Jeep Commander ac won't work at idle 97 Mustang flashing OD light Acura MDX warning light

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 08 by Shapell's Rabbeim

What's your favorite Devar Torah for the Yamim Noraim? How can we make our Kabbalos last – and what really works? What's the most powerful lesson you've learned this past year? What do you hope to carry forward into the year ahead? 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 Rebbetzin Slovie Jungreis Wolff – teacher, author and lecturer – 11:03 with Rabbi Michoel Frank – Rav, Ohr HaTorah, Silver Spring, Maryland – 18:50 with Rabbi Dovid Ostroff – posek and teacher at many seminaries in Yerushalayim – 34:26 with Rabbi Binyomin Wolff – shul Rav and magid shiur in Yerushalayim – Rebbe at Aish and Shapells - 52:50 with “Rav Gav” Friedman – lecturer at Aish HaTorah, Yerushalayim – 1:05:37 with Rabbi Yaakov Wolff – host of the Shtark Tank podcast – 1:22:05 with Mrs. Michal Horowitz – lecturer and teacher – 1:30:53 with Rabbi Aron Moss – Rabbi of the Nefesh Community in Sydney, Australia – 1:51:30 Conclusions and takeaways – 2:02:24 מראי מקומות   

2 sections- final points in Rava's thirds contradiction and 2 more contradiction of other Amoraim within positions of Rav regarding similiarity/dissimilarity interrupting processes

Some words of encouragement as we enter into Rosh Hashana and Yom Kippur 

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

2 sections- final points in Rava's thirds contradiction and 2 more contradiction of other Amoraim within positions of Rav regarding similiarity/dissimilarity interrupting processes

Quel lien y a-t-il entre les sons du Chofar de Roch Hachana, et la résurrection des morts ? Et entre ces sons et la lecture du Chéma' avant de dormir ? Qu'est-ce qu'une Térou'a ? Que rappelle ce son du Chofar ? Comment embrouille-t-il le Yétser Hara' ? Réponse à travers des propos de Rav Saadia Gaon et de Rav 'Haïm Vital.

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 07 by Shapell's Rabbeim

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

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

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 06 by Shapell's Rabbeim

Donde dije digo....Bienvenidos a MecanicaPod , el programa de Motor para todos a los que nos gusta conducir.En este episodio:Gerardo prueba un Clio a GLPTambien viaja en coche electrico, y hace unas simulacionesLCambios en las etiquetas ambientalesEuropa, reculandoAniversario del circuito de guadalopePulido de faros - KIT de pulidoBombillas led para el RAVEnlace grupo de Telegram!

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

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

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

Rabbi Bogopulsky is the Rav of Beis Medrash of Pomona.

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

Rosh Hashanah 5786 – Le minhag de Hatarat Nedarim expliqué par le Rav by Rav David Touitou

Gemara Chabura - Rabbi Karlinsky - Da'as Torah and Asei L'cha Rav 05 by Shapell's Rabbeim

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is mishicha koina by a goy machlokes ameimar and Rav ashi

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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