Podcasts about Ravina

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her 4th yartzeit. "You graced us all with your glorious smile, innate wisdom and beautiful neshama. To say that you are missed every day is an understatement." Today's daf is for the refuah shleima of Elad ben Netta. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan's statement that one only receives lashes for eating maaser sheni outside Jerusalem after it was brought into Jerusalem, based on a derivation from Rabbi Yosi's words ina braita. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the derivation from Rabbi Yosi's as referring to a case where the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem, and the innovation is that it entered while still being tevel (untithed produce), and he holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as if they have been separated. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with this resolution (because it seems R' Yosi doesn't actually hold this position). The Gemara then presents two answers from Rabba and Ravina to resolve this difficulty. One who makes a bald spot on his head as a sign of mourning for the dead, who rounds the corners of his head or destroys the hair on his beard, or who makes a cut in his flesh for the dead receives lashes. The Gemara discusses the details of these commandments and the minimum measurements for which one would be liable.

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her mother, Chana Cohen, Chana bat Rav Moshe and Tzipora Mashbaum, on her 4th yartzeit. "You graced us all with your glorious smile, innate wisdom and beautiful neshama. To say that you are missed every day is an understatement." Today's daf is for the refuah shleima of Elad ben Netta. The Gemara questions Rabbi Yochanan's statement that one only receives lashes for eating maaser sheni outside Jerusalem after it was brought into Jerusalem, based on a derivation from Rabbi Yosi's words ina braita. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the derivation from Rabbi Yosi's as referring to a case where the produce had already been brought into Jerusalem, and the innovation is that it entered while still being tevel (untithed produce), and he holds that gifts that have not been separated are considered as if they have been separated. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with this resolution (because it seems R' Yosi doesn't actually hold this position). The Gemara then presents two answers from Rabba and Ravina to resolve this difficulty. One who makes a bald spot on his head as a sign of mourning for the dead, who rounds the corners of his head or destroys the hair on his beard, or who makes a cut in his flesh for the dead receives lashes. The Gemara discusses the details of these commandments and the minimum measurements for which one would be liable.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Naveh Shimshon, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky. The Gemara delves into various issues regarding an "ir hanidachat," idolatrous city. Can a city become an idolatrous city if there was no subverted, but they decided on their own? If individuals get stoned, but if the majority of the city is convicted, they get killed by the sword, how does the court rule on the first half of the inhabitants before it is clear that the majority of the inhabitants will be guilty? Temporary residents are also considered part of the city, but how long do they need to live there to be considered temporary residents? Even though the righteous people of the city are not killed, their possessions are destroyed. What is the difference between the possessions of the righteous people and those of the idol worshippers different and how are there laws derived from the Devarim 13:16? Rav Chisda ruled that deposits of inhabitants are not burned. To what is he referring? If there is no square in the town, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yismael disagree about whether or not the city can be judged as idolatrous city. How does each derive their position from the verse in the Torah? The Mishna explained what is done with various sanctified items in the city - whether animals designated for sacrifices, second tithe produce and others. The Gemara brings a braita that expands on this list. What are animals designated for sacrificed left to die and cannot be redeemed and the money used so sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each bring a different answer to this question. The first explanation of Reish Lakish is rejected and an alternative is suggested. Why didn't each one hold by the other's position? In the braita, Rabbi Shimon excludes firstborn animals and tithed animals from the burning. Is this referring to unblemished or blemished animals? Ravina and Shmuel each take a different position on this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Tina and Shalom Lamm on the occasion of the brit and naming of their new grandson, Naveh Shimshon, born to their children, Peninah and Eitan Kaplansky. The Gemara delves into various issues regarding an "ir hanidachat," idolatrous city. Can a city become an idolatrous city if there was no subverted, but they decided on their own? If individuals get stoned, but if the majority of the city is convicted, they get killed by the sword, how does the court rule on the first half of the inhabitants before it is clear that the majority of the inhabitants will be guilty? Temporary residents are also considered part of the city, but how long do they need to live there to be considered temporary residents? Even though the righteous people of the city are not killed, their possessions are destroyed. What is the difference between the possessions of the righteous people and those of the idol worshippers different and how are there laws derived from the Devarim 13:16? Rav Chisda ruled that deposits of inhabitants are not burned. To what is he referring? If there is no square in the town, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yismael disagree about whether or not the city can be judged as idolatrous city. How does each derive their position from the verse in the Torah? The Mishna explained what is done with various sanctified items in the city - whether animals designated for sacrifices, second tithe produce and others. The Gemara brings a braita that expands on this list. What are animals designated for sacrificed left to die and cannot be redeemed and the money used so sacrifices? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish each bring a different answer to this question. The first explanation of Reish Lakish is rejected and an alternative is suggested. Why didn't each one hold by the other's position? In the braita, Rabbi Shimon excludes firstborn animals and tithed animals from the burning. Is this referring to unblemished or blemished animals? Ravina and Shmuel each take a different position on this.

Today's daf is sponsored by Yarden and Guy in honor of Leah Zelda Shechter's birthday! What happens to someone who doesn't teach Torah to others? What happens to someone who does? Rava, Ravina and Rav Ashi brought three more verses to prove the resurrection of the dead. Rabbi Elazar brought a statement relating to the resurrection of the dead. From there, the Gemara brings several statements from Rabbi Elazar about different topics, including the value of de'ah, leaving bread of the table in case a poor person shows up, and being humble. A braita from the school of Eliyahu teaches that when the dead are resurrected, they will not die again. The Gemara brings the verses in Ezekiel where Ezekiel brings the bones back to life. Can this be brought as a source for the resurrection of the dead or to prove that when they are brought back to life, they will not live forever? Various interpretations are brought to explain whether he really resurrected the dead (or was it just a parable) and if he did, whether they lived for a few moments or went on to lead full lives. Another question is who were the people who Ezekiel resurrected? Several suggestions are brought, and the last interpretation leads into the story of Chanania, Mishael, and Azarya.

Today's daf is sponsored by Yarden and Guy in honor of Leah Zelda Shechter's birthday! What happens to someone who doesn't teach Torah to others? What happens to someone who does? Rava, Ravina and Rav Ashi brought three more verses to prove the resurrection of the dead. Rabbi Elazar brought a statement relating to the resurrection of the dead. From there, the Gemara brings several statements from Rabbi Elazar about different topics, including the value of de'ah, leaving bread of the table in case a poor person shows up, and being humble. A braita from the school of Eliyahu teaches that when the dead are resurrected, they will not die again. The Gemara brings the verses in Ezekiel where Ezekiel brings the bones back to life. Can this be brought as a source for the resurrection of the dead or to prove that when they are brought back to life, they will not live forever? Various interpretations are brought to explain whether he really resurrected the dead (or was it just a parable) and if he did, whether they lived for a few moments or went on to lead full lives. Another question is who were the people who Ezekiel resurrected? Several suggestions are brought, and the last interpretation leads into the story of Chanania, Mishael, and Azarya.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum haLevi on his 21st yahrzeit "He raised his family with the positive ethos of אבא, כתיב בתורה כך. Yehi zichro baruch!" If one sees one's father doing something wrong, what is the proper language one should use to correct one's father?  If one is supposed to get two death penalties for two separate actions or for one action involving two prohibitions, the ruling goes by the harsher death penalty. Rabbi Yosi disagrees in the latter case and holds that it goes by the one that was first prohibited to the person. What is the source for the former?  The Mishna explains that if one sins and gets lashes and then sins again, the third time they are put into a kipa, a small cell, and fed barley until their innards explode and they die. The Gemara limits this to a case of a sin punishable by karet, death in the hands of God, and explains that since the person is actually considered like a dead person since they have a death penalty hanging over them, which allows for the law of kipa to go into effect. Is the Mishna like Rebbi only who holds that one creates a chazaka after two times, or can it be explained according to Rashbag as well? Ravina explains it according to Rashbag, as the chazaka is created by the sins, not the lashes, which are repeated three times. A difficulty is raised against Ravina's explanation, but is resolved. What is the source in Tanach for the law of kipa?  A murderer who can't be convicted also is put in a kipa. The sages offer various possibilities of a murderer for whom this would be relevant.  There are certain transgressions that do not need to be ruled in court, but a zealous person who is on the scene is permitted to take the law into his/her own hands and kill the person. In what situations?   

Today's daf is sponsored by the Tannenbaum family in loving memory of Miriam's father Yaakov Yitzchak ben Moshe Nachum haLevi on his 21st yahrzeit "He raised his family with the positive ethos of אבא, כתיב בתורה כך. Yehi zichro baruch!" If one sees one's father doing something wrong, what is the proper language one should use to correct one's father?  If one is supposed to get two death penalties for two separate actions or for one action involving two prohibitions, the ruling goes by the harsher death penalty. Rabbi Yosi disagrees in the latter case and holds that it goes by the one that was first prohibited to the person. What is the source for the former?  The Mishna explains that if one sins and gets lashes and then sins again, the third time they are put into a kipa, a small cell, and fed barley until their innards explode and they die. The Gemara limits this to a case of a sin punishable by karet, death in the hands of God, and explains that since the person is actually considered like a dead person since they have a death penalty hanging over them, which allows for the law of kipa to go into effect. Is the Mishna like Rebbi only who holds that one creates a chazaka after two times, or can it be explained according to Rashbag as well? Ravina explains it according to Rashbag, as the chazaka is created by the sins, not the lashes, which are repeated three times. A difficulty is raised against Ravina's explanation, but is resolved. What is the source in Tanach for the law of kipa?  A murderer who can't be convicted also is put in a kipa. The sages offer various possibilities of a murderer for whom this would be relevant.  There are certain transgressions that do not need to be ruled in court, but a zealous person who is on the scene is permitted to take the law into his/her own hands and kill the person. In what situations?   

This week, the guys are joined by actor Dax Ravina for a wild conversation that spans his journey into acting and his unexpected encounters with the paranormal. Dax shares the story of his first time witnessing orbs—alongside actors who star in the comedy show, Trailer Park Boys—and what unfolded during Dax's skywatch with the Bledsoe family. They also dive into the mind-bending realms of spoon bending, telepathy, and unlocking psychic abilities, exploring just how strange and powerful this reality can get.

Decoding the TalmudInside the Story, Substance, and Significance of the Book that Defines JudaismLesson 4To Create the TalmudHow the sages shaped its structure and substance.Meet the pivotal sages in the Talmud's story—from Rav and Shmuel's first academies to Rav Ashi and Ravina's final text—and see how they wove in stories as well as ethical and philosophical teachings.

Ever wondered what the fishy smell is down there? Poppy and Rubina are joined by Dr Ravina to learn about vaginal health, how to keep it 'clean' and bust some popular myths. Have a message for Poppy and Rubina? If you're over 16, you can message the BGDIT team via WhatsApp for free on 07968100822. Or email us at browngirlsdoittoo@bbc.co.ukIf you're in the UK, for more BBC podcasts listen on BBC Sounds: bbc.in/3UjecF5

Spiraling melodies and half time tempos spring to the forefront for our premiere today, titled Ravina. Portuguese artists Floating Machine and Inerte have combined talents for a contribution to the Berlin and Lisbon based event series and label, Art Bei Ton. The fifth edition of their VA series, ‘Seeing Cursed Spirits' will soon be released that showcases a variety of sounds. All nestled within the folds of deep and hypnotic techno. Ravina evolves, slowly but surely. Each pulse of the percussion brings new life and energy into the air. A soft pad floats in the background, ethereal and ever-shifting, creating a sense of vast space that's peppered with bright auditory textures giving movement and spontaneity as they jump around the listener. Gradually, voices become more pronounced, their distant melodies forming a loop that seems to repeat and evolve in subtle variations, like a mantra or chant. The panning continues to play with perception, shifting focus gently from one side to the other until the ending moments as each element slowly falls away. Art Bei Ton's latest VA will be released on the 16th of January and includes offerings from a diverse set of artists including Viels, PEIX, and Nao Nhil. @floating-machine @inrt @art-bei-ton www.instagram.com/floating_machine/ www.instagram.com/art_bei_ton/ Write up by @huedj Follow us on social media: @itsdelayed linktr.ee/delayed www.delayed.nyc www.facebook.com/itsdelayed www.instagram.com/_____delayed www.youtube.com/@_____delayed Contact us: info@delayed.nyc

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. "My love and gratitude to Rabanit Michelle for her teaching, Goldie and Debbie for their hospitality and friendship and all you dafferot/im during my wonderful time here at home in Israel, leaving today back ASAP." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig-Kones in loving memory of her brother, Eliyahu David ben Sara and Shmuel. From where do we derive that cousins cannot testify for each other, that relatives cannot testify together for other people, and that relatives from the mother's side are disqualified as well. The verse that serves as the main source for these laws is Devarim 24:16, whose topic is capital punishment. From where do we derive that these laws apply to monetary law as well? Rav brings a list of relatives who cannot testify for him and he cannot testify for them. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with his ruling in light of the Mishna as he forbids a second-generation relative with a third (his cousin's son) and the Mishna only listed first and second-generation relatives. Three answers are suggested - the first two are rejected. In conclusion, Rav does not hold like the Mishna but partially agrees with Rabbi Elazar's position. Rav Nachman listed relatives through one's mother-in-law - her brother and the sons of her siblings. He then explains that these cases can be found in our Mishna as the son-in-law of his sister's husband is the same relationship viewed from the other direction. Rav Ashi does the same thing with the relatives through the father-in-law. When Rav was asked if a man could testify for his stepson's wife, Rav answered that he could not. Two versions of his answer were quoted either a husband is like his wife or a wife is like her husband. Rav Huna brings a source for this from Vaykira 18:14. If the son of his mother's husband is his brother, why is it necessary to list it separately in the Mishna? Two answers are brought, each based on a different understanding of the case - is it his mother's son or her husband's son from a different wife? Rav Chisda rules that the parents of the wife can testify for the parents of the husband as they are not considered relatives. Raba bar bar Hana permits a man to testify for a woman to whom he is betrothed. However, Ravina limits his ruling and the Gemara rejects it entirely. The Mishna listed that a stepson is disqualified, but not his son and stepson. Two braitot show a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about whether that is true for the stepson or the brother-in-law, and perhaps both. The Gemara tries to understand the position of each of them and which opinion fits with our Mishna and which opinion disagrees with our Mishna. Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Yosi. Rav Yosef thought that the ruling related to Rabbi Yosi in our Mishna was that only relatives that inherit each other are forbidden, but Abaye suggested that it could mean Rabbi Yosi above in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda.

Presentation of Relatives Today's daf is sponsored by Dianne Kuchar. "My love and gratitude to Rabanit Michelle for her teaching, Goldie and Debbie for their hospitality and friendship and all you dafferot/im during my wonderful time here at home in Israel, leaving today back ASAP." Today's daf is sponsored by Vitti Rosenzweig-Kones in loving memory of her brother, Eliyahu David ben Sara and Shmuel. From where do we derive that cousins cannot testify for each other, that relatives cannot testify together for other people, and that relatives from the mother's side are disqualified as well. The verse that serves as the main source for these laws is Devarim 24:16, whose topic is capital punishment. From where do we derive that these laws apply to monetary law as well? Rav brings a list of relatives who cannot testify for him and he cannot testify for them. However, the Gemara raises a difficulty with his ruling in light of the Mishna as he forbids a second-generation relative with a third (his cousin's son) and the Mishna only listed first and second-generation relatives. Three answers are suggested - the first two are rejected. In conclusion, Rav does not hold like the Mishna but partially agrees with Rabbi Elazar's position. Rav Nachman listed relatives through one's mother-in-law - her brother and the sons of her siblings. He then explains that these cases can be found in our Mishna as the son-in-law of his sister's husband is the same relationship viewed from the other direction. Rav Ashi does the same thing with the relatives through the father-in-law. When Rav was asked if a man could testify for his stepson's wife, Rav answered that he could not. Two versions of his answer were quoted either a husband is like his wife or a wife is like her husband. Rav Huna brings a source for this from Vaykira 18:14. If the son of his mother's husband is his brother, why is it necessary to list it separately in the Mishna? Two answers are brought, each based on a different understanding of the case - is it his mother's son or her husband's son from a different wife? Rav Chisda rules that the parents of the wife can testify for the parents of the husband as they are not considered relatives. Raba bar bar Hana permits a man to testify for a woman to whom he is betrothed. However, Ravina limits his ruling and the Gemara rejects it entirely. The Mishna listed that a stepson is disqualified, but not his son and stepson. Two braitot show a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi about whether that is true for the stepson or the brother-in-law, and perhaps both. The Gemara tries to understand the position of each of them and which opinion fits with our Mishna and which opinion disagrees with our Mishna. Shmuel ruled like Rabbi Yosi. Rav Yosef thought that the ruling related to Rabbi Yosi in our Mishna was that only relatives that inherit each other are forbidden, but Abaye suggested that it could mean Rabbi Yosi above in his debate with Rabbi Yehuda.

Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Atik for the refuah shleima of Tzvi Dov Ben Sara.  A tribe that sins is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. To what is this referring? What was their sin? After rejecting the possibility that it is a regular sin with capital punishment like Shabbat or idol worship, several possibilities are suggested. Rav Matna says it is the Nasi of a tribe who sins. Ulla says it is a dispute between two tribes over property. Ravina returns to the rejected answer of idol worship and resolves the earlier difficulty by explaining that they are judged in a court of seventy-one, even though they receive the same punishment as individuals who worshipped idols. A false prophet is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived through a gezeira shava from the rebellious elder who is punished only if he rebels against a decision of the Great Sanhedrin, even though he is judged in a court of twenty-three. The High Priest is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived from the words "davar gadol" - issues relating to a gadol, a prominent person. However, others explain this as referring to a difficult matter. Rabbi Elazar asks about an ox of the High Priest that gored - would that be judged in a court of twenty-three or the Great Sanhedrin? There is no answer to this question, but Abaye infers from the question that it was obvious that a financial dispute of the High Priest is ruled in a court of three. The Great Sanhedrin needs to be part of the decision to go out to an optional war. From where is this derived? Only the Great Sanhedrin can expand the borders of Jerusalem and the azarot, and establish courts of twenty-three. These are derived from Moshe's actions, as his actions are considered equivalent to those of the Great Sanhedrin. From where is it derived that an idolatrous city is judged before the Great Sanhedrin? The derivations of other laws regarding idolatrous cities are brought - why not near the border and why not more than two cities? There are different opinions regarding how many cities can be designated as idolatrous cities, depending on location, different courts, and other factors.  

Today's daf is sponsored by Shifra Atik for the refuah shleima of Tzvi Dov Ben Sara.  A tribe that sins is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. To what is this referring? What was their sin? After rejecting the possibility that it is a regular sin with capital punishment like Shabbat or idol worship, several possibilities are suggested. Rav Matna says it is the Nasi of a tribe who sins. Ulla says it is a dispute between two tribes over property. Ravina returns to the rejected answer of idol worship and resolves the earlier difficulty by explaining that they are judged in a court of seventy-one, even though they receive the same punishment as individuals who worshipped idols. A false prophet is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived through a gezeira shava from the rebellious elder who is punished only if he rebels against a decision of the Great Sanhedrin, even though he is judged in a court of twenty-three. The High Priest is judged in the Great Sanhedrin. This is derived from the words "davar gadol" - issues relating to a gadol, a prominent person. However, others explain this as referring to a difficult matter. Rabbi Elazar asks about an ox of the High Priest that gored - would that be judged in a court of twenty-three or the Great Sanhedrin? There is no answer to this question, but Abaye infers from the question that it was obvious that a financial dispute of the High Priest is ruled in a court of three. The Great Sanhedrin needs to be part of the decision to go out to an optional war. From where is this derived? Only the Great Sanhedrin can expand the borders of Jerusalem and the azarot, and establish courts of twenty-three. These are derived from Moshe's actions, as his actions are considered equivalent to those of the Great Sanhedrin. From where is it derived that an idolatrous city is judged before the Great Sanhedrin? The derivations of other laws regarding idolatrous cities are brought - why not near the border and why not more than two cities? There are different opinions regarding how many cities can be designated as idolatrous cities, depending on location, different courts, and other factors.  

Thirdy Revina is tackling a different game this term in the basketball world. From the international scene to the local-he is now on a mission to face a different challenge. Check out his full interview with Omar Al-Duri on Pulse 95 radio. Follow us on Social. www.facebook.com/pulse95radio www.twitter.com/pulse95radio www.instagram.com/pulse95radio www.soundcloud.com/pulse95radio

Today's daf is sponsored by Penina Lipskier in honor of her son's wedding, Daniel to Ella and in loving memory of his friends, Yakir Hexter and David Schwartz HY"D who were killed during the war. "May we only know smachot!" Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff Perlman in honor of the occasion of their daughter Yael Perlman and her new husband Matt Shapiro making aliyah to Jerusalem on Sunday! "We are so proud of their decision and look forward to sharing their experiences of their new life in our holy land!"  Ravina suggests to Rav Ashi a fourth response to Rav Sheshet's question, can an item can be acquired by the buyer when it is placed in the buyer's vessels on the property of the seller? However, this too is rejected and the question is left unanswered. The Mishna in Kiddushin Chapter 1, Mishna 5 established that moveable items can be acquired by pulling. However, it is limited by either Rav Chisda, Rav Kahana, or Rava to a case where the item cannot be lifted. When Abaye taught this qualification of the Mishna, Rav Ada bar Matna raised a difficulty against it from a tannaitic source. Three other sources are also brought to question this limitation, but all the difficulties are resolved. Rav and Shmuel differentiate between a case where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor (30 se'ah) of wheat for 30 sela" and one where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor for 30 sela, each se'ah for a zuz." In the former, the sale is final only when the measuring is complete, in the latter, the sale is final for each se'ah as it goes into the measuring cup. A difficulty is raised against the first case from a braita quoted previously where the sale is final even before filling up the cup, provided the cup used was the buyer's. This difficulty is resolved by assuming the braita refers to a case more similar to the latter case of Rav and Shmuel.

Today's daf is sponsored by Penina Lipskier in honor of her son's wedding, Daniel to Ella and in loving memory of his friends, Yakir Hexter and David Schwartz HY"D who were killed during the war. "May we only know smachot!" Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff Perlman in honor of the occasion of their daughter Yael Perlman and her new husband Matt Shapiro making aliyah to Jerusalem on Sunday! "We are so proud of their decision and look forward to sharing their experiences of their new life in our holy land!"  Ravina suggests to Rav Ashi a fourth response to Rav Sheshet's question, can an item can be acquired by the buyer when it is placed in the buyer's vessels on the property of the seller? However, this too is rejected and the question is left unanswered. The Mishna in Kiddushin Chapter 1, Mishna 5 established that moveable items can be acquired by pulling. However, it is limited by either Rav Chisda, Rav Kahana, or Rava to a case where the item cannot be lifted. When Abaye taught this qualification of the Mishna, Rav Ada bar Matna raised a difficulty against it from a tannaitic source. Three other sources are also brought to question this limitation, but all the difficulties are resolved. Rav and Shmuel differentiate between a case where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor (30 se'ah) of wheat for 30 sela" and one where the seller says, "I am selling you a kor for 30 sela, each se'ah for a zuz." In the former, the sale is final only when the measuring is complete, in the latter, the sale is final for each se'ah as it goes into the measuring cup. A difficulty is raised against the first case from a braita quoted previously where the sale is final even before filling up the cup, provided the cup used was the buyer's. This difficulty is resolved by assuming the braita refers to a case more similar to the latter case of Rav and Shmuel.

SIGN UP!: UPCOMING LIVE Q&A! https://bit.ly/RBQALIVE   Dedication opportunities are available for episodes and series at  https://ohr.edu/donate/qa   Questions? Comments? podcasts@ohr.edu   Yeshivat Ohr Somayach located in the heart of Jerusalem, is an educational institution for young Jewish English-speaking men. We have a range of classes and programs designed for the intellectually curious and academically inclined - for those with no background in Jewish learning to those who are proficient in Gemara and other original source material. To find the perfect program for you, please visit our website https://ohr.edu/study_in_israel​ whatsapp us at https://bit.ly/OSREGISTER or call our placement specialist at 1-254-981-0133 today!   Subscribe to the Rabbi Breitowitz Q&A Podcast at https://plnk.to/rbq&a   Submit questions for the Q&A with Rabbi Breitowitz https://forms.gle/VCZSK3wQJJ4fSd3Q7   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OhrSomayach/videos   8-7-24 00:00 - What is Eliyahu HaNavi's biography?   06:44 - Hazal talks about four exiles of Galus. Why is the Galus of Edom assumed to be the last and the one we are currently in?   15:34 - Why does the Gemara repeat itself word for word?   24:10 - When there is no speaker named in the Gemara do we assume it is Ravina and Rav Ashi?   25:10 - What are the minor Tractates?   31:55 - What is כרת, excision of the soul?   38:07 - When Yosef cried on Binyamin's neck Chazal explains that this is referring to the  destruction of the two temples. Why was this prophecy relevant at that time?   42:55 - When the Pasuk says that brothers were concerned what Yosef would do to them after Yaakov's death, what exactly were they concerned about?   45:50 - How do we connect to Tisha Ba'Av?   56:48 - Were the Malachim lying when they asked where Sarah was?   01:03:15 - Why did Baalei Mussar find it difficult to accept Mashiach?   01:06:35 - What does it mean Derech Eretz Kadma L'Torah? Does this mean there is morality outside of the Torah?   01:15:50 - Hazal say that Tamar was a Bas Cohen. How does this work chronologically?   01:19:11 - Does we encourage people to convert who have a lot of opposition from their family?   01:25:09 - What are the halachos of a Cohen visiting Auschwitz?   01:27:20 - Did the holocaust lead to the state of Israel?   01:29:55 - What does it mean that it is a Halacha that Esav hates Yaakov?   01:32:35 - Should we encourage goyim to be Christian seeing as Rambam says Christianity is a necessary step from Paganism to belief in God?   01:33:55 - Is the ideal state of the world without a Beis Hamikdash?     You can listen to this and many other Ohr Somayach programs by downloading our app, on Apple and Google Play, ohr.edu and all major podcast platforms. Visit us @ https://ohr.edu  PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS  

If one says yachlok, divide my portion with..., the person gets half, but what is the law if one says “give a chelek, portion, to...? Ravina bar Kisi brings an answer from a braita which rules in a similar case that one gets a quarter as there is a doubt whether the intent was half or a bit and Sumchus rules that when there is money in question, the money is split it between the two parties. A braita explains that a Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give the seller the Levite tithes. How can one do this if it means selling something that does not yet exist? To answer this question, the Gemara assumes that the seller retains rights to part of the land. Reish Lakish infers from this braita the law for a different case when the seller says he/she is selling the house but retaining the upper floor, as both are cases where there is no real meaning to the statement and it is therefore applied to mean something else. Regarding the Levite, there is no way to retain future produce, so the seller must have meant the land itself. With the house, since there is no need to retain the upper floor, so it must have been referring to something else. Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each provide different interpretations in the case of the house as to what Reish Lakish understood to be retained by the original owner - either to hang a beam from the roof into the airspace of the courtyard (Rav Zevid) or building rights to build on the roof if the current roof is destroyed (Rav Papa). The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Papa’s explanation as it is more intuitive to derive it from the next Mishna (Bava Batra 64a) than from the braita. Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights, and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. What items are included in each case? The Gemara tries to prove his statement from the next Mishna, but then rejects the proof.

If one says yachlok, divide my portion with..., the person gets half, but what is the law if one says “give a chelek, portion, to...? Ravina bar Kisi brings an answer from a braita which rules in a similar case that one gets a quarter as there is a doubt whether the intent was half or a bit and Sumchus rules that when there is money in question, the money is split it between the two parties. A braita explains that a Levite can sell one property and stipulate that the owner give the seller the Levite tithes. How can one do this if it means selling something that does not yet exist? To answer this question, the Gemara assumes that the seller retains rights to part of the land. Reish Lakish infers from this braita the law for a different case when the seller says he/she is selling the house but retaining the upper floor, as both are cases where there is no real meaning to the statement and it is therefore applied to mean something else. Regarding the Levite, there is no way to retain future produce, so the seller must have meant the land itself. With the house, since there is no need to retain the upper floor, so it must have been referring to something else. Rav Zevid and Rav Pappa each provide different interpretations in the case of the house as to what Reish Lakish understood to be retained by the original owner - either to hang a beam from the roof into the airspace of the courtyard (Rav Zevid) or building rights to build on the roof if the current roof is destroyed (Rav Papa). The Gemara raises a difficulty with Rav Papa’s explanation as it is more intuitive to derive it from the next Mishna (Bava Batra 64a) than from the braita. Rav Dimi discusses the difference between a sale with no specification, one where it was stipulated that the buyer acquires the depths and the heights, and one where the buyer acquired from the depths of the earth to the height of the sky. What items are included in each case? The Gemara tries to prove his statement from the next Mishna, but then rejects the proof.

When one sells a house, it does not include certain parts of the house, unless the seller specifies that the sale includes everything in the house. The Mishna lists the properties not included in the sale – the yetzia, for which the Gemara brings two possible definitions, an inner room used for storage, and a room with a parapet of ten handsbreadths. Rav Yosef quotes a braita that says there are two other synonyms for the word yetzia – tzela and ta – and sources from the Torah and tannaitic sources are brought to show where these words are used. Mar Zutra qualifies the yetzia exclusion to one where the yetzia was four cubits. Ravina questions this but Mar Zutra resolves the difficulty. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to add the case of the room if one could have derived the ruling for the storage room from the yetzia? It teaches that even if the seller designates a border, and the storage room is included in the border, if the seller says “house,” the room is not included. This accords with two statements of Rav Nachman that the Gemara proceeds to analyze and establish the circumstances of the cases. Why did Rav Nachman need to teach about both cases – why couldn’t we have derived one from the other? The Gemara mentions certain terms and explains what would be included in a sale if that particular term was used, such as ara, arata, zihara, and nichsei. 

When one sells a house, it does not include certain parts of the house, unless the seller specifies that the sale includes everything in the house. The Mishna lists the properties not included in the sale – the yetzia, for which the Gemara brings two possible definitions, an inner room used for storage, and a room with a parapet of ten handsbreadths. Rav Yosef quotes a braita that says there are two other synonyms for the word yetzia – tzela and ta – and sources from the Torah and tannaitic sources are brought to show where these words are used. Mar Zutra qualifies the yetzia exclusion to one where the yetzia was four cubits. Ravina questions this but Mar Zutra resolves the difficulty. Why was it necessary for the Mishna to add the case of the room if one could have derived the ruling for the storage room from the yetzia? It teaches that even if the seller designates a border, and the storage room is included in the border, if the seller says “house,” the room is not included. This accords with two statements of Rav Nachman that the Gemara proceeds to analyze and establish the circumstances of the cases. Why did Rav Nachman need to teach about both cases – why couldn’t we have derived one from the other? The Gemara mentions certain terms and explains what would be included in a sale if that particular term was used, such as ara, arata, zihara, and nichsei. 

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "Rina got me started on my journey of Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a magnificent person who does incredible chessed for Am Yisrael and serves as an example to all of us. With love and admiration for who you are." People in the Bar Marion household were pounding flax, and the flax waste flew in the wind to the neighbor and caused damage. Is this considered damages (giri didei) for which Rabbi Yosi would obligate? Can we learn from the laws of Sabbath (winnowing with the wind's assistance)? One needs to distance one's tree from another's property by four cubits to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one's roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain depth, depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). Various cases are brought discussing these halakhot.  The Mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor's tree, the roots go to "him."  The Gemara tries to figure out whether the "him" refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. Ravina and Ulla each understand that the first sixteen cubits of the roots are considered part of the tree, but beyond that, they are not. Based on that, Ulla rules that a tree within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field is considered to be stealing from the neighbor's field and one should therefore not bring bikurim from such a tree. The Gemara tries to bring tannaitic sources to prove how Ulla arrived at the number sixteen.

Today's daf is sponsored by Judy Schwartz in honor of her daughter Rina. "Rina got me started on my journey of Daf Yomi with Hadran. You are a magnificent person who does incredible chessed for Am Yisrael and serves as an example to all of us. With love and admiration for who you are." People in the Bar Marion household were pounding flax, and the flax waste flew in the wind to the neighbor and caused damage. Is this considered damages (giri didei) for which Rabbi Yosi would obligate? Can we learn from the laws of Sabbath (winnowing with the wind's assistance)? One needs to distance one's tree from another's property by four cubits to leave room for the neighbor to plow. If one's roots grow into a neighboring field, one can cut them to a certain depth, depending on why one is cutting them (what one needs the space for). Various cases are brought discussing these halakhot.  The Mishna says that when one is allowed to cut the roots of a neighbor's tree, the roots go to "him."  The Gemara tries to figure out whether the "him" refers to the owner of the tree or the owner of the neighboring field. Ravina and Ulla each understand that the first sixteen cubits of the roots are considered part of the tree, but beyond that, they are not. Based on that, Ulla rules that a tree within sixteen cubits of a neighboring field is considered to be stealing from the neighbor's field and one should therefore not bring bikurim from such a tree. The Gemara tries to bring tannaitic sources to prove how Ulla arrived at the number sixteen.

Today's Talmud pages, Bava Batra 5 and 6, relate to the disagreement between two neighbors over the need for fences to keep them separate. One, Ronya, believes they are not necessary until his neighbor, Ravina, uses a practical example to show otherwise. Do good fences make good neighbors? Listen and find out.

Seder Nezikin Kit - Order Form Bava Batra bookmark Ravina's property surrounded Runia's property on all four sides and Ravina put up a fence and insisted that Runia share in the cost, based on the ruling in the Mishna. Runia did not want to pay. They brought the case in front of Rava who ruled that Runia needed to pay at least the amount of money it would have cost him to bring a guard to protect the property. In another incident, Runia brought property adjacent to Ravina's field and Ravina wanted to kick him off the land and buy the property himself based on the law of dina d'bar metzra, that the person living adjacent to a property can insist on purchasing the field and takes priority to any other buyer. Rav Safra told him to let Runia have the property as Runia needed the land more than Ravina did. If a wall dividing a courtyard of two neighbors falls, even if the wall was higher before it fell, the minimum height needed to rebuild is four cubits. If one neighbor wants to rebuild the wall at its original height, they cannot insist that the other neighbor pay half. However, if the neighbor who does not want to pay to make the wall higher, builds an inner wall and plans to attach a roof from the high dividing wall to the new inner wall, that neighbor has shown that the high wall serves their needs and has to share the cost. If there is a debate between neighbors about whether one paid the other for the cost of the wall, who is believed? On what does it depend? Reish Lakish disagrees with Abaye and Rava regarding a case where the creditor and borrower each claim before the date the loan was due that the loan was/was not repaid. Reish Lakish assumes that people do not pay before the date it is due and therefore the borrower is not believed. Abaye and Rava trust the borrower's claim. First, a section of our Mishna is brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position and then the next section is brought to raise a question on Abaye and Rava's position, but each difficulty is resolved. The Gemara concludes that we hold like Reish Lakish and even one who is collecting from orphans can collect even without taking an oath, if the father died before the date the loan was due.

The case of an inner all and an outer wall - can one party induce the other the participate in payment for fencing just by virtue of putting them up - a court case between Ravina and Ronya. Also, a new mishnah! On the obligation when a courtyard wall collapses and neighbors all need to pay in to construct a new wall, of at least 4 amot high. Always, the one who claims he has contributed needs to prove it. The Gemara introduces a time factor - when the debt comes due.

Seder Nezikin Kit - Order Form Bava Batra bookmark Ravina's property surrounded Runia's property on all four sides and Ravina put up a fence and insisted that Runia share in the cost, based on the ruling in the Mishna. Runia did not want to pay. They brought the case in front of Rava who ruled that Runia needed to pay at least the amount of money it would have cost him to bring a guard to protect the property. In another incident, Runia brought property adjacent to Ravina's field and Ravina wanted to kick him off the land and buy the property himself based on the law of dina d'bar metzra, that the person living adjacent to a property can insist on purchasing the field and takes priority to any other buyer. Rav Safra told him to let Runia have the property as Runia needed the land more than Ravina did. If a wall dividing a courtyard of two neighbors falls, even if the wall was higher before it fell, the minimum height needed to rebuild is four cubits. If one neighbor wants to rebuild the wall at its original height, they cannot insist that the other neighbor pay half. However, if the neighbor who does not want to pay to make the wall higher, builds an inner wall and plans to attach a roof from the high dividing wall to the new inner wall, that neighbor has shown that the high wall serves their needs and has to share the cost. If there is a debate between neighbors about whether one paid the other for the cost of the wall, who is believed? On what does it depend? Reish Lakish disagrees with Abaye and Rava regarding a case where the creditor and borrower each claim before the date the loan was due that the loan was/was not repaid. Reish Lakish assumes that people do not pay before the date it is due and therefore the borrower is not believed. Abaye and Rava trust the borrower's claim. First, a section of our Mishna is brought to raise a difficulty against Reish Lakish's position and then the next section is brought to raise a question on Abaye and Rava's position, but each difficulty is resolved. The Gemara concludes that we hold like Reish Lakish and even one who is collecting from orphans can collect even without taking an oath, if the father died before the date the loan was due.

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"

Abaye, Rava and Rav Ashi each bring a different derivation for the rule that shmira b'baalaim is a valid exemption only when the owner was working for the borrower at the moment of the act of borrowing. Rami bar Hama asks four questions regarding the borrower's liablity for unexpected damages (oness). Then he asks three questions, and Ravina asks a fourth regarding the exemption of shmira b'baalim. Each of these eight questions relates to a unique case and asks whether the general halakha applies in these exceptional circumstances. The last two questions, regarding a husband/wife and an agent are answered: they depend on amoraic debates. Is there a difference if the agent is the owner's slave? Rami bar Hama asks a question regarding a husband's level of responsibility for his wife's usufruct property and about who is responsible for meila for her property if it was sanctified. Rava answers both questions. A borrower is not liable for depreciation or for an animal dying from use as the borrower can claim: "I didn't borrow it just to leave it on the windowsill!"

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word "thresh" in the verse about the ox - that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat. 

Ravina adds an additional method to derive that a worker is permitted to eat while working with detached produce and that it is prohibited to muzzle an ox even from attached produce. Four tannaitic sources are cited that derive details of the laws regarding the employer allowing a worker to eat from the produce. Each source derives a different detail from the word "thresh" in the verse about the ox - that it refers to items that grow from the ground, at a stage that the produce is ready to be picked and until the stage that it is obligated in tithing or separating challa. A question is asked whether one can toast grains or produce to sweeten them. Is this considered like eating grapes with another substance, which is not permitted, or not? Four sources are cited to address this question, but each is rejected as inconclusive, and the question remains unanswered. The last source states that one may not add salt to fruit, but this contradicts another source that permits it. Abaye and Rava each reconcile the contradiction differently, but both understand the salt issue to be relating to the obligation to tithe and not to what is permitted/not permitted for a worker to eat. 

Rabbi Yehuda haNasi and Rabbi Natan were the last from the Mishna period and Ravina and Rav Ashi were the last of the Talmudic period. This statement is likely referring to the editing of the Mishna and Talmud. Raba bar Nachmani was killed out of fear of the king. Raba bar Nachmani's tragic death is recounted and how it related to the need for him in the heavens to resolve a debate between God and the rabbis in the yeshiva in the heavens. The Mishna related to the custom in the land and a story about Rabbi Yochanan ben Matia and his son's commitment to their workers. On account of that story, the Gemara digresses into a series of drashot on the story of Avraham and the angels and the food that he served to them.

Rabbi Yehuda haNasi and Rabbi Natan were the last from the Mishna period and Ravina and Rav Ashi were the last of the Talmudic period. This statement is likely referring to the editing of the Mishna and Talmud. Raba bar Nachmani was killed out of fear of the king. Raba bar Nachmani's tragic death is recounted and how it related to the need for him in the heavens to resolve a debate between God and the rabbis in the yeshiva in the heavens. The Mishna related to the custom in the land and a story about Rabbi Yochanan ben Matia and his son's commitment to their workers. On account of that story, the Gemara digresses into a series of drashot on the story of Avraham and the angels and the food that he served to them.

Today's daf is sponsored by Brooke & Yossi Pollak in honor of their daughter Avital Adin's bat mitzvah. "We are so proud of your devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and maasim tovim. Ima loves learning Mishna Yomi with you and can't wait to keep going for the next several years. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! Mazal tov!"  If a Jew lends money of a non-Jew to another Jew on interest, or if a non-Jew lends money of a Jew to a Jew, under which circumstances is it permissible? Ravina proposes a third explanation to elucidate the distinction in legal rulings between these scenarios, but his explanation is dismissed. If a convert engaged in borrowing or lending with interest prior to converting and then, before conversion, amalgamated the interest-bearing loan into one encompassing the entire sum, the convert is entitled to collect the full amount. Rabbi Yosi contends that if the convert was the borrower, the interest cannot be collected under any circumstances, as this might incentivize non-Jews to convert solely to evade high interest payments. The rabbis and Rabbi Meir debate whether a lender who loaned on interest can recover the principal amount only, without the interest, or if they are penalized and cannot recover any part of the loan. Various scenarios are examined where an aspect of the document is invalidated (akin to a loan involving interest), raising the question of whether the entire document becomes void or if the valid parts remain enforceable. Distinctions between different cases are analyzed, such as errors in a document versus situations where the document is based on false premises like the seller not actually owning the item being sold. The Mishna addresses the halachot concerning purchasing produce upfront at the start of the season but deferring receipt of the produce until later. This practice is often prohibited due to usury concerns, as the value of the produce may rise. It is permitted when the seller possesses the produce at the time of sale or when the market value has already been established.

Today's daf is sponsored by Brooke & Yossi Pollak in honor of their daughter Avital Adin's bat mitzvah. "We are so proud of your devotion to Torah, mitzvot, and maasim tovim. Ima loves learning Mishna Yomi with you and can't wait to keep going for the next several years. Consistency, Consistency, Consistency! Mazal tov!"  If a Jew lends money of a non-Jew to another Jew on interest, or if a non-Jew lends money of a Jew to a Jew, under which circumstances is it permissible? Ravina proposes a third explanation to elucidate the distinction in legal rulings between these scenarios, but his explanation is dismissed. If a convert engaged in borrowing or lending with interest prior to converting and then, before conversion, amalgamated the interest-bearing loan into one encompassing the entire sum, the convert is entitled to collect the full amount. Rabbi Yosi contends that if the convert was the borrower, the interest cannot be collected under any circumstances, as this might incentivize non-Jews to convert solely to evade high interest payments. The rabbis and Rabbi Meir debate whether a lender who loaned on interest can recover the principal amount only, without the interest, or if they are penalized and cannot recover any part of the loan. Various scenarios are examined where an aspect of the document is invalidated (akin to a loan involving interest), raising the question of whether the entire document becomes void or if the valid parts remain enforceable. Distinctions between different cases are analyzed, such as errors in a document versus situations where the document is based on false premises like the seller not actually owning the item being sold. The Mishna addresses the halachot concerning purchasing produce upfront at the start of the season but deferring receipt of the produce until later. This practice is often prohibited due to usury concerns, as the value of the produce may rise. It is permitted when the seller possesses the produce at the time of sale or when the market value has already been established.

Today's daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz in loving memory of his mother Sara F. Berkowicz. "She was a holocaust survivor and strong supporter of Jewish education." Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar engage in a debate over whether the court holds the authority to compel the return of interest payments collected at a fixed rate from the outset. Rabbi Eliezer supports his stance by referencing a verse from Vayikra 22:27, which concludes with "and your brother shall live with you," suggesting that one should return the interest to foster a harmonious relation with the borrower. However, Rabbi Yochanan interprets this verse differently, aligning it with Rabbi Akiva's opinion in his dispute with Ben Petura regarding the scenario of two individuals traveling with only one canteen of water. In this dilemma, where the water is insufficient for both to survive, is it preferable for each to consume half and neither will cause the death of the other, or for the canteen owner to drink it all and survive. Two sources are cited to challenge Rabbi Yochanan's view that the court lacks the authority to enforce the lender to return the interest collected. These objections are somewhat reconciled to support Rabbi Yochanan's position. Rav Safra, aligning with Rabbi Elazar, delineates between interest payments that the court can compel the lender to return and those that they cannot. Although Abaye and Ravina initially raise objections to Rav Safra's distinction, these concerns are eventually resolved. The initial Mishna of the chapter presents a case of interest prohibited by the rabbis. However, it conflicts with a subsequent Mishna within the same chapter. Raba and Abaye propose interpretations of the case details, but their explanations are ultimately rejected.

Today's daf is sponsored by Yechiel Berkowicz in loving memory of his mother Sara F. Berkowicz. "She was a holocaust survivor and strong supporter of Jewish education." Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar engage in a debate over whether the court holds the authority to compel the return of interest payments collected at a fixed rate from the outset. Rabbi Eliezer supports his stance by referencing a verse from Vayikra 22:27, which concludes with "and your brother shall live with you," suggesting that one should return the interest to foster a harmonious relation with the borrower. However, Rabbi Yochanan interprets this verse differently, aligning it with Rabbi Akiva's opinion in his dispute with Ben Petura regarding the scenario of two individuals traveling with only one canteen of water. In this dilemma, where the water is insufficient for both to survive, is it preferable for each to consume half and neither will cause the death of the other, or for the canteen owner to drink it all and survive. Two sources are cited to challenge Rabbi Yochanan's view that the court lacks the authority to enforce the lender to return the interest collected. These objections are somewhat reconciled to support Rabbi Yochanan's position. Rav Safra, aligning with Rabbi Elazar, delineates between interest payments that the court can compel the lender to return and those that they cannot. Although Abaye and Ravina initially raise objections to Rav Safra's distinction, these concerns are eventually resolved. The initial Mishna of the chapter presents a case of interest prohibited by the rabbis. However, it conflicts with a subsequent Mishna within the same chapter. Raba and Abaye propose interpretations of the case details, but their explanations are ultimately rejected.

TISS is a weekly podcast where Varun, Kautuk , Aadar& Nevill discuss Comedy, Touring, Relationships, Food & Football "facts" they find on the internet. So come learn with them...or something like that. To support TISS, check out our Instamojo: www.instamojo.com/@TISSOPFollow #TISS Shorts where we put out videos: https://bit.ly/3tUdLTCYou can also check out the podcast on Apple podcast, Spotify and Google podcast!http://apple.co/3neTO62http://spoti.fi/3blYG79http://bit.ly/3oh0BxkCheck out the TISS Sub-Reddit: https://bit.ly/2IEi0QsCheck out the TISS Discord: / discord Buy Varun Thakur's 420 Merch - http://bit.ly/2oDkhRVSubscribe To Our YT ChannelsVarun - https://bit.ly/2HgGwqcAadar - https://bit.ly/37m49J2Neville - https://bit.ly/2HfYlWyKautuk - https://bit.ly/3jcpKGaDaniel - https://www.youtube.com/ @DANIELSLOSSOFFICIAL  Follow Us on Instagram.Varun - / varunthakur Aadar - / theaadarguy Neville - / nevilleshah. Kautak - / cowtuk Daniel- https://www.instagram.com/danielsloss/Ravina- https://www.instagram.com/ravinarawal/ Producer- Rupika KhereChannel Artwork by Sidhi SurteThumbnail - Jay Sureka

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 23rd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn’t. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who “found what they love and never worked a day in his life.”  Instead, his career was “bring home a paycheck and support his family.” I wish we had had more time together."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v’Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v’ Ze’ev Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. "They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened." Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled - in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief's possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did - do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew.  Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves - they are considered like land that is not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?

Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Art’s father Joseph, Yosef ben Shlomo Shabtai v’Rachel on his 23rd yahrzeit. "Joe was an ordinary man of extraordinary dignity, decency and dedication. When my mother first saw him she was immediately interested. Then he removed his hat; she saw his bald head and concluded he was already married with children. He wasn’t. The rest is family history. Joe was not one of those lucky people who “found what they love and never worked a day in his life.”  Instead, his career was “bring home a paycheck and support his family.” I wish we had had more time together."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Harriet Hartman in loving memory of her parents, Fruma (Florence) bat Ester v’Nachum Natan, and Baruch (Ben) ben Hinda Josepha v’ Ze’ev Stillman, whose yahrzeits are only 4 days apart in Shvat. "They always encouraged me to pursue whatever interested me and supported me with unfailing love. Their love, solidarity and stability were models to all of my children despite our geographical distance in most of our everyday lives. I broadened their horizons, as they enabled my horizons to be broadened." Contradictory statements of Shmuel regarding the collection of land by a creditor from a buyer are reconciled - in what situations does the creditor collect the enhancements as well? On what does it depend? Rava explains that if one steals an item and it increases in value while in the thief's possession, the increase goes to the thief, if the thief sells it or dies the buyer or the heirs get the enhancement as well. He asks about a case where the thief did not enhance the value of the item but the buyer/ heir did - do they get the enhancement as well? He then answers by saying that they do, as they acquired whatever rights the thief had. However, he asks if this would hold if a gentile had stolen and then sold the item to a Jew.  Ravina clarifies the case in which Rava asked this question. His question is left unanswered. Rav Pappa and Rava bring various cases where some sort of change happens to the item and they determine whether this is a significant change that would enable the robber to acquire the item or not. If the name changes, that is generally considered a significant change, but only if the item cannot be returned to its original state. The Mishna ended with an unnecessary line summing up the principle behind the cases in the Mishna. The Gemara derives from here an additional halakha that if one stole a lamb and it became a ram, a calf and it became an ox while in the possession of the thief, the item is acquired by the thief and he/she returns the value of the younger animal and if the thief sold or slaughtered it, there would be no four/five payment as it is considered owned by the thief. In a similar case, one stole oxen and used them to work his field and when they returned the animals, Rav Nachman required him to pay the value of the enhancement of the field. When Rava questioned his ruling, Rav Nachman explained that he ruled stringently as this thief had stolen many times before. If an object decreases in value in the hands of the thief, the thief returns the item at the value at the time of the theft, However, if it decreases in value on account of damages that cannot be noticed, such as, teruma that became impure, chametz after Pesach that was not sold, the thief can return the item as is, even though it now has no value. Rav held like Rabbi Meir in the Mishna regarding slaves - they are considered like land that is not acquired by a thief. Why did he hold like Rav against the mainstream opinion of the rabbis?

Yahrtzeit Yomi #878!! כט כסלו The Cheshek Shlomo רב שלמה ב״ר ישראל משה הכהן חשק שלמה (1828 - 1905) SPECIAL CHANUKAH TORAH FROM THE CHESHEK SHLOMO!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #877!! כח כסלו Reb Beinish Mandel אברהם בייניש בן יחיאל יהודה הכהן מאנדעל (1957 - 2016) ------------------------------------ Today's edition of Yahrtzeit Yomi is lovingly dedicated by The Mandel Family l'zecher Nishmas today's featured tzaddik, Reb Beinish Mandel - ר׳ אברהם בייניש בן ר׳ יחיאל יהודה הכהן מאנדעל זצ״ל, on the occasion of his 7th Yahrtzeit, 28 Kislev. May the Neshoma of Reb Beinish zl continue to be a meilitz yosher for his beautiful family, his thousands of admirers, and all of Klal Yisroel!! ת.נ.צ.ב.ה. ---------------------------- לז״נ ר׳ אברהם בייניש ב״ר יחיאל יהודה הכהן F35 Rabbi Kalish shiur LZ”N Reb Beinish Mandel Apple Podcast - https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/rabbi-daniel-kalish-shiurim-waterbury-mesivta/id1562549987?i=1000590948470 Spotify Podcast - https://open.spotify.com/episode/1vjwVrU2YbCS77qFtZR6aW?si=4xxnSWFBRQ-Gk69NIQPVXw _______ Listen to this Shiur & previous shiurim @ RabbiKalish.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #875!! (Shabbos) כו כסלו The Raavad III רב אברהם ב״ר דוד בעל השגות (1121 - 1198) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #876!! כז כסלו The Pri Chadash רב חזקיה ב״ר דוד די סילוא‎ פרי חדש (1659 - 1698) INSIGHTS INTO הלכות חנוכה FROM THE פרי חדש!! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #874!! כה כסלו The Aruch LaNer Rav Yaakov Ettlinger רב יעקב יוקב ב״ר אהרן ערוך לנר (1798 - 1871) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #872!! כד כסלו Rav Aharon Leib Steinman Ayeles HaShachar רב אהרן יהודה ליב ב״ר נח צבי אילת השחר (1914 - 2017) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059. First come, first served. Monthly sponsorships are $540. Weekly sponsorships are $180. Daily sponsorships are as follows: Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50. Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100. The cost to request and sponsor a Tzaddik that is not included on the following list is $180. Kislev Yahrtzeits!! 1. The Rebbe Recovers 2. Rav Aharon Kotler/Rav Nosson Meir Wachtfogel 3. Rav Yaakov Moshe Kulefsky 4. Nevuas Zechariah 5. Maharsha/Rav Boruch Ber 6. Rav Michoel Dov Weissmandel 7. Megillas Taanis 8. Rav Eliezer Geldzahler 9. Mitteler Rebbe 10. Rav Isser Zalman Meltzer 11. “Kislev Providence” 12. Maharshal/Bas Ayin 13. Ravina brei D'rav Huna 14. Reuven ben Yaakov Avinu 15. Rabi Yehudah HaNasi 16. 2nd Modzhitzer Rebbe 17. Alter of Novardok/Rav Shlomo Heiman 18. Bostoner Rebbe 19. Mezeritcher Maggid 20. Rav Yitzchak Hutner 21. Yom Har Gerizim/Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank 22. Rav Shalom Mordechai Schwadron 23. Galya Masechta 24. Chaggai perek 2/Sdei Chemed 25. Aruch LaNer 26. Ra'avad III 27. Pri Chadash 28. Rav Eliyahu Meir Bloch 29. Cheshek Shlomo Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!! https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk

Yahrtzeit Yomi #871!! כג כסלו Happy Birthday Reb Yaakov Brown!!