Podcasts about resh lakish

Two more explanations in the machlokes Reb akiva and Reb Yishmael,complex drashos in Reb yitzchaks shita ,and how we if somebody it's kodesh betumah that he gets Malkid according to Resh Lakish and Reb Yochanan

Resh Lakish bounces off the wicked kings of Yehudah to talk about wickedness in general. With playing on the spelling of words as implying the way bad things happen in the world, with the letter "ayin." Plus, more on Menashe -- among several of the other wicked kings who didn't make it onto the list of those who don't have a portion in the World to Come. With a list of how many midrashic interpretations these wicked kings had learned -- that is, they learned more Torah than one might have expected. And idolatry and the killing of the prophet Isaiah.

More on the disqualified: First, people who use sabbatical produce as merchandise, during a year where the intercalation is done outside of the land of Israel, which itself is unusual. Kohanim were spotted working the land and produce in various ways - and the Gemara attempts to give them excuses that don't involve violating the shemitah rules. But all that produce could be converted to terumah. Does that mean that kohanim are willing to mess with the laws of the sabbatical produce? Plus, a tussle between Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish... again. Also, the Gemara on a "cluster of wicked people" -- as represented by Shevnah, who was a leader in the court of King Hezekiah, and how God does not heed them over the righteous people. Plus, archaeology that may indeed support some of Shevnah's purported activities.

What happens when it's not clear whether a person was indeed on his deathbed? In the aftermath of determining whether his gift was valid, it becomes a matter of dispute - hinging on whether the rule of the burden of proof being on the one making a claim applies in this case. Plus, what happens when witnesses and a certification document contradict, and the person himself undermines his initial claim? Also, more on the dispute - specifically, the opinions of Rabbi Yochanan and Resh Lakish of the value of witnesses vs. a documentation, and why each is right in his position -- with interesting wrinkle, like whether one might have been a minor, and why we don't exhume the body to check.

A new mishnah! On how a healthy person can transfer property to others -- to go into effect after that person's death: the phrasing of "from now until after death." But what happens to that property during the lifetime? Neither father nor son can sell those properties during the father's lifetime. And if the son did sell, the buyer does not have the right until father's death. But does the father need to say, " from now" to begin with? The Gemara suggests that the date alone should be enough. Also, the case of all of the above, but where the son dies in his father's lifetime -- what happens if the son has sold the property before he died? Does the sale take effect (say, after the father's death? Or not at all? It's a dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish.

Watch Rabbi David Sutton - A Path To A Meaningful , Positive, and Meaningful Elul & Yamim Noraim https://itorah.com/browse-lectures/all/all-speakers/personal-growth-midot-/midot-perseverance/all-languages/2024-09-08 We continue in our special mini-series of Pesukim of the Rosh Hashanah Musaf . We're up to the 7th pasuk in Malchuyot , which comes from Yeshaya 44,6 כֹּה־אָמַ֨ר יְהֹוָ֧ה מֶלֶךְ־יִשְׂרָאֵ֛ל וְגֹאֲל֖וֹ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת אֲנִ֤י רִאשׁוֹן֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אַחֲר֔וֹן וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים׃ So said Hashem, the King of Israel and its Redeemer, the God of the hosts. I am the first One, I am the last One. Besides Me, there is no god, there is no controller. Malbim tells us that this pasuk is coming to correct some ancient mistakes in the understanding of God. There was a mistaken belief called Olam Kadmon that the world always existed; that there wasn't anything there before, that matter or the mass of the world pre existed and God somehow just worked with it. On that, we say Ani Rishon/Hashem is first, nothing existed before Him, and nothing will exist after Him because He is the Source of all existence. And to one who might say that there is more than one force to do this, we say וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים /There is nothing else but Hashem , which is really the concept of En Od Milevado / There's nothing else but God. He existed beforehand, He'll exist after, and even in the interim, there is nothing else but Him. The Yerushalmi, based on this pasuk, says the famous line that ' God's signature is Emet .' Emet means that Hu Elohim Chaim U'Melech Olam/He's a living God and He's an everlasting King . That is why, Resh Lakish tells us, אמת Emet has an א Aleph , which is at the beginning of the Aleph Bet, מ Mem which is in the middle, and ת Taf at the end of the Aleph Bet. It's a hint to this pasuk that Hashem is Emet , which means he's Aleph , he's the Rishon. He didn't receive anything from anybody. There's no one else but God. He has no partner, and in the end He's never going to hand it over to anybody else. That's the consistency and Emet of Hashem that's going through all times. Orchot Sadikim in Shaar Emet/Gate of Truth, discusses when God introduced Himself to Moshe Rabbenu. He said, My name is Ehiyeh Asher Ehiyeh/I will be that I will be. And he says, if you multiply the numerical value of that name, אהיה (21) times אהיה (21), it's same numerical value as אמת Emet, which is 441. God introduced Himself as I am, I was, and I always will be. And that's the concept of Emet , the constant. And that is this pasuk, that Hashem says, אֲנִ֤י רִאשׁוֹן֙ וַאֲנִ֣י אַחֲר֔וֹן וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים׃ The Avudarham says that we actually hint to this pasuk every day in our prayers. After we say Keriat Shema, we say Emet Ata Hu Rishon V'ata Hu Aharon/The truth is You're the first and You're the last, which is based on our pasuk of Ani Rishon V'Ani Aharon. We say, Umibaladecha En Lanu Melech Goel U'Mashiach/And besides You, there is no King and Redeemer that will save us. That's based on the end of that pasuk וּמִבַּלְעָדַ֖י אֵ֥ין אֱלֹהִֽים׃ So we hint to this pasuk every day in our prayers after Keriat Shema. Rav Yehezkiel Levenstein, in his sefer on Emunah , says one of the difficult things of our Emunah is to understand that nothing happens in this world without the will of God, because all there is is the will of God. In the future it will be revealed, and we will see clearly that everything that happened in the world, even though it was decided by wicked people, was really guided by God. (We don't understand a person can have freedom of choice, and God knows what's going to happen and wants it to happen). Nothing happens to the world against His will because there's nothing else but Him. And even though it looks like things happen by the wicked, against God's will, and they think they're doing against His will and they're going to get punished because they think they're going against His will, ultimately, everything is turning the wheels towards where He wants to get to. The Rav gives an example of the Pi HaAretz/the mouth of the earth, which was created at the beginning of creation to swallow up Korach. That revelation had to happen, and it was going happen. And yet Korach decided to be the one to bring it about, and he was punished for it. Nothing that happens in the world is chaos, although it looks like it's out of control. That's a mistake. It can't be. It's impossible, because all that exists is God's will and there's nothing else here but Him. So everything that's happening is happening in the backdrop of His Oneness and bringing us to the ultimate redemption and end. It's hard to perceive, but on Rosh Hashanah, in the middle of our prayers, when we say this pasuk , that's what we're trying to envision.

Selling a stolen animal and the penalty incurred during the time when the owner is or is no longer hoping to get the animal back - subject to a machloket on whether the despair of the owner getting the animal back. The extra 4 and 5 payment only kicks in once the theft is "forever." After despair, the thief takes full possession, and the original owner is compensated. There is an important discussion here regarding whether the animal is sold or slaughtered. Plus, note R. Sheshet's view and R. Nachman's view. Also, a clearly articulated dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish - until the reasons for their dispute are put through the wringer, and nothing is clear anymore. Including why a thief (and also an owner) would consecrate a stolen animal.

More on a joint get, where the date per divorce may make the difference (a dispute between Resh Lakish and R. Yochanan). Plus, a new mishnah - what happens if the signatures of the witnesses are in both Hebrew and Greek, under different sides of the get, in different orders, because of the different directions of the languages (dispute between Rashi and Rambam). Also, another mishnah, where the witnesses sign on different locations of the get document. Among other possible confusions.

The Gemara continues to discuss remedies for various diseases as well as explain what causes some of the various diseases.  The Mishna rules that a person who sent a messenger to write a get and then got kordiyakus and then said not to write the get, we ignore his later orders. There is an argument between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan about whether the messenger can write the get while the husband has the kordiyakus or does he wait until the husband gets better and then writes it based on his earlier instructions. This addresses the issue of the power of appointing a messenger. Is the messenger now acting independently of the one who sent them?  Or is the messenger only an extension of the one who sent them and if the one who sends the messenger is longer of sound mind, then the messenger cannot perform the action?

The Gemara continues to discuss remedies for various diseases as well as explain what causes some of the various diseases.  The Mishna rules that a person who sent a messenger to write a get and then got kordiyakus and then said not to write the get, we ignore his later orders. There is an argument between Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan about whether the messenger can write the get while the husband has the kordiyakus or does he wait until the husband gets better and then writes it based on his earlier instructions. This addresses the issue of the power of appointing a messenger. Is the messenger now acting independently of the one who sent them?  Or is the messenger only an extension of the one who sent them and if the one who sends the messenger is longer of sound mind, then the messenger cannot perform the action?

If one sells oneself and one's children to non-Jews, the children can be redeemed after the father dies, which leads into a famous story about Resh Lakish and his origins as what is often translated as a gladiator, perhaps a brigand. And how he came to be a great chavruta/bar plugta (regular arguing partners) with R. Yochanan. Plus, the way Resh Lakish died basically destitute. Also, a new mishnah: when one sells his field in the land of Israel to a non-Jew, which invalidates the agricultural mitzvot, for example. Plus, a discussion of the sanctity of the land - what biblical verses attest to God's holy ownership of the land that lead to the obligation of those mitzvot.

Daf Yummy épisode 925. Gittin 47 : Gladiator. I am a slave... Portrait de Resh Lakish. by Myriam Ackermann Sommer

Insight into how the rules regarding purity and impurity changed over those early generations. Also, a dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish regarding the impurity of a limb that is separated from a body (whether live or dead), that doesn't have a measure of flesh on it.

The Gemara presents a series of potential practical differences between the approaches of R. Yochanan (an inherited tradition - halakhah le-Moshe mi-Sinai) and Resh Lakish (a matter of education). Also, the value of taking the vow of nezirut (for a change), including R. Hanina's vow.

A new mishnah: when witnesses come to court to testify about another person's vow of nezirut. Plus contradictory witnesses. With a dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai on how to square the contradictions. Also, moving on to the new chapter, 4: another new mishnah: where one person takes a vow as a nazir, and subsequent people say that they each are too, then they're all nezirim... except that if the first person is released from nezirut, then those who said "and I!" are no longer bound either. Likewise, other wordings that indicate the same. Plus, the amount of time it takes to greet another is the limit on how quickly others chime in to the first person's vow. Note the discussion between R. Yehudah HaNasi and Resh Lakish.

The ongoing dispute between R Yochanan and Resh Lakish, over the declaration of nezirut in the cemetery - when the vow takes effect. Also, more on the person who takes on nezirut in a cemetery - when is he required to shave? And what happens between when he takes the oath and when the nezirut kicks in, if indeed he first must leave and purify before he can even begin the count?

One who swears off benefit from his friend cannot enter the friend's field or benefit from his produce. But a shemitah year changes those terms. Plus, how the phrasing her lines up (or doesn't) with the position of Rav and Shmuel, or perhaps R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish - specifically with regard to the impact of shemitah on the benefit factor. Plus, swearing off benefit means no lending/borrowing, or selling/buying. Even though only one direction is "benefit"

[Shanah tovah! This episode is for Monday, September 25, the first day of Rosh Hashanah] More connections between yibum and the granting of a woman's ketubah, and other property considerations, as the yavam technically gets his hands on the property of the dead brother. Plus, a question how the yavam can come into control of her property - isn't it hers? Resh Lakish responds definitively that, yes, it's hers (which emends the mishnah!). Also, how the ketubah puts a lien on the husband's property - and how it was a surety for the wife even when the ketubah was a specific item, rather than the sum it came to be later. And how the sages made sure that divorce wouldn't be too easy, lest it be the result of a (normal) fight between the couple. Plus, the decree by Shimon ben Shetach establishing a ketubah that protects the woman better. [Who's Who: Shimon ben Shetach] PS: What are the implications for decorative ketubot?

Rabbi Ari Kahn's The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on the Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (OU Press, 2020) represents a major achievement in the study of the lives of our Sages, as well as in the study of rabbinic Aggada. This work is an immensely learned and deeply creative interpretation of many fundamental aggadot relating to the intellectual biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim, including Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, and many others. Additionally, it covers aggadot dealing with major themes in Jewish thought, including the nature of the Oral Law, mysticism and its perils, the messianic era, teshuvah and Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Kahn presents close readings of Talmudic and Midrashic sources about events in the lives of the Sages, together with the gamut of interpretations, especially those of Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentators, to arrive at original and compelling conclusions. His insights shed light on the Talmudic narrative as well as on broader philosophical questions. Full Hebrew sources are included to enable readers to study the source material on their own. For all those interested in rabbinic lives and rabbinic Aggada, The Crowns on the Letters is essential reading. Matthew Miller is a graduate of Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah. He studied Jewish Studies and Linguistics at McGill for his BA and completed an MA in Hebrew Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. He works with Jewish organizations in media and content distribution, such as TheHabura.com and RabbiEfremGoldberg.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Rabbi Ari Kahn's The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on the Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (OU Press, 2020) represents a major achievement in the study of the lives of our Sages, as well as in the study of rabbinic Aggada. This work is an immensely learned and deeply creative interpretation of many fundamental aggadot relating to the intellectual biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim, including Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, and many others. Additionally, it covers aggadot dealing with major themes in Jewish thought, including the nature of the Oral Law, mysticism and its perils, the messianic era, teshuvah and Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Kahn presents close readings of Talmudic and Midrashic sources about events in the lives of the Sages, together with the gamut of interpretations, especially those of Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentators, to arrive at original and compelling conclusions. His insights shed light on the Talmudic narrative as well as on broader philosophical questions. Full Hebrew sources are included to enable readers to study the source material on their own. For all those interested in rabbinic lives and rabbinic Aggada, The Crowns on the Letters is essential reading. Matthew Miller is a graduate of Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah. He studied Jewish Studies and Linguistics at McGill for his BA and completed an MA in Hebrew Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. He works with Jewish organizations in media and content distribution, such as TheHabura.com and RabbiEfremGoldberg.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/jewish-studies

Rabbi Ari Kahn's The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on the Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (OU Press, 2020) represents a major achievement in the study of the lives of our Sages, as well as in the study of rabbinic Aggada. This work is an immensely learned and deeply creative interpretation of many fundamental aggadot relating to the intellectual biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim, including Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, and many others. Additionally, it covers aggadot dealing with major themes in Jewish thought, including the nature of the Oral Law, mysticism and its perils, the messianic era, teshuvah and Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Kahn presents close readings of Talmudic and Midrashic sources about events in the lives of the Sages, together with the gamut of interpretations, especially those of Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentators, to arrive at original and compelling conclusions. His insights shed light on the Talmudic narrative as well as on broader philosophical questions. Full Hebrew sources are included to enable readers to study the source material on their own. For all those interested in rabbinic lives and rabbinic Aggada, The Crowns on the Letters is essential reading. Matthew Miller is a graduate of Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah. He studied Jewish Studies and Linguistics at McGill for his BA and completed an MA in Hebrew Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. He works with Jewish organizations in media and content distribution, such as TheHabura.com and RabbiEfremGoldberg.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Rabbi Ari Kahn's The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on the Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (OU Press, 2020) represents a major achievement in the study of the lives of our Sages, as well as in the study of rabbinic Aggada. This work is an immensely learned and deeply creative interpretation of many fundamental aggadot relating to the intellectual biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim, including Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, and many others. Additionally, it covers aggadot dealing with major themes in Jewish thought, including the nature of the Oral Law, mysticism and its perils, the messianic era, teshuvah and Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Kahn presents close readings of Talmudic and Midrashic sources about events in the lives of the Sages, together with the gamut of interpretations, especially those of Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentators, to arrive at original and compelling conclusions. His insights shed light on the Talmudic narrative as well as on broader philosophical questions. Full Hebrew sources are included to enable readers to study the source material on their own. For all those interested in rabbinic lives and rabbinic Aggada, The Crowns on the Letters is essential reading. Matthew Miller is a graduate of Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah. He studied Jewish Studies and Linguistics at McGill for his BA and completed an MA in Hebrew Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. He works with Jewish organizations in media and content distribution, such as TheHabura.com and RabbiEfremGoldberg.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Rabbi Ari Kahn's The Crowns on the Letters: Essays on the Aggada and the Lives of the Sages (OU Press, 2020) represents a major achievement in the study of the lives of our Sages, as well as in the study of rabbinic Aggada. This work is an immensely learned and deeply creative interpretation of many fundamental aggadot relating to the intellectual biographies of the Tannaim and Amoraim, including Hillel and Shammai, Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, Resh Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan, and many others. Additionally, it covers aggadot dealing with major themes in Jewish thought, including the nature of the Oral Law, mysticism and its perils, the messianic era, teshuvah and Eretz Yisrael. Rabbi Kahn presents close readings of Talmudic and Midrashic sources about events in the lives of the Sages, together with the gamut of interpretations, especially those of Kabbalistic and Hasidic commentators, to arrive at original and compelling conclusions. His insights shed light on the Talmudic narrative as well as on broader philosophical questions. Full Hebrew sources are included to enable readers to study the source material on their own. For all those interested in rabbinic lives and rabbinic Aggada, The Crowns on the Letters is essential reading. Matthew Miller is a graduate of Yeshivat Yesodei HaTorah. He studied Jewish Studies and Linguistics at McGill for his BA and completed an MA in Hebrew Linguistics at Queen Mary University of London. He works with Jewish organizations in media and content distribution, such as TheHabura.com and RabbiEfremGoldberg.org. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

70. R Yochanan, Resh Lakish

Resh Lakish's explication of the text, in providing the source for ma'aser sheni becoming impure and then available for use to anoint one's body. Which aligns with what is done for the living and the dead in the same way. Plus, the various interpretations of the biblical term that accounts for the above as well. Also, another derivation from a verse - about impure kohanim who must purify before they can eat terumah. Likewise, who has to bring korbanot as "bar kapparah," those who need atonement (zav and metzora) - when is their time of purification? A range of times are able to be derived from the verse. And, another mnemonic... for where terumah is treated more stringently than ma'aser sheni. Plus, some thoughts on why these topics are getting so much attention.

On Resh Lakish, in contrast to R. Yochanan - on the 3 times we follow Resh Lakish. Including regarding inheritance regulations, as compared to those of a gift. Also, what happens if there's yibum between a yavam and a yevama before waiting to see if she is pregnant from the brother who died....? The Gemara debates them needing to divorce and separate forever, or separate until they know if there's room to permit them to be together...and whether the sages agree or disagree. Including when the child does or doesn't survive for 30 days or more.

A dispute between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish on the mitzvah here of seeing and being seen. Note the parallel passage to Masekhet Peah, on those mitzvot which have no limit - including "ra'ayon," which needs defining in the context of Re'eiah. What is the extent to which we need to bring what we bring to God? Anthropomorphism par excellence. Also, a new mishnah - on what monies can be used to pay for what (when sacred property (ma'aser sheni) and when "hullin," non-sacred property).

One of the special garments worn by the Kohen Gadol was the Me'il (the robe). In the Torah's discussion of the Me'il in Parashat Tesaveh (Shemot 28:32), it says that there must be a lining around the top opening, through which the Kohen Gadol's head extends, and “Lo Yikare'a” – “it shall not be ripped.” This verse establishes a prohibition against tearing the Me'il. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that tearing a garment, quite obviously, expresses disdain and disregard for the garment, showing that one does not consider it important. This is particularly so when this is done to the top rim, which has the effect of essentially ruining the garment. The Kohen Gadol was to wear his special garments with a sense of awe and reverence, realizing the importance of the special role which these garments represent, and so the Torah forbade treating the garments in a degrading manner, such as by ripping them. The Sefer Ha'hinuch comments that this prohibition applies only during the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash. At first glance, this might seem obvious, but the Minhat Hinuch observes that this remark is actually imprecise. Even after the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash, if a person would happen to discover the Me'il that had been worn by the Kohen Gadol in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and it was intact, it would be forbidden to tear it. Thus, at least in principle, this prohibition is applicable even after the Bet Ha'mikdash's destruction. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that this command is directed to both males and females; if either a man or a woman tears the Me'il, he or she has transgressed this prohibition and is liable to Malkut. Furthermore, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, one violates this prohibition regardless of whether he tore the Me'il with his hands, or with scissors. The Minhat Hinuch explains this comment of the Sefer Ha'hinuch as implying that the prohibition of “Lo Yikare'a” forbids ripping the Me'il not only in a destructive manner, but even for other purposes, such as if one wishes to expand the neck opening of the Me'il. Even though his intent is not to ruin the garment, this is nevertheless forbidden. In discussing this Misva, the Sefer Ha'hinuch speaks only of the Me'il, indicating that this prohibition is limited to the Me'il, and does not apply to the other Bigdeh Kehuna (priestly vestments). As the Minhat Hinuch notes, this appears to contradict the Gemara's explicit comment in Masechet Yoma (72) that the prohibition of “Lo Yikare'a” forbids tearing any of the special garments worn by the Kohanim. The Minhat Hinuch answers that the Gemara elsewhere, in Masechet Zebahim (95a), seems to take a different view. There Resh Lakish addresses the case of a Me'il which was stained with sacrificial blood, and must therefore be laundered in the courtyard of the Bet Ha'mikdash, but in the meantime, it had been taken outside the Bet Ha'mikdash and became Tameh (impure). If this would happen to a different garment, then since it is forbidden to bring an impure garment to the Bet Ha'mikdash, the garment would first be torn into pieces smaller than the minimum size that can contract impurity. Since these pieces are no longer considered impure, they may be brought into the Temple courtyard to be laundered. The Me'il, however, may not be torn, and so Resh Lakish rules that a different solution must be implemented, bringing the garment slowly into the courtyard, a little bit at a time. The fact that Resh Lakish says that this must be done only in the case of a Me'il strongly implies that it is only the Me'il which the Torah forbids tearing, whereas other garments of the Kohen Gadol may be torn. Hence, the Minhat Hinuch writes, the Sefer Ha'hinuch followed Resh Lakish's view, that this prohibition applies only to the Me'il, and he did not accept the Gemara's ruling in Masechet Yoma, that this command refers to all the Bigdeh Kehuna. Even according to the position of the Sefer Ha'hinuch, however, tearing one of the other Bigdeh Kehuna is forbidden by force of a different command – “Lo Ta'asun Ken L'Hashem Elokechem” (Debarim 12:4), which forbids ruining sacred articles. Although the Sefer Ha'hinuch viewed the command of “Lo Yikare'a” as limited to the Me'il, tearing any of the Bigdeh Kehuna would in any event transgress the separate prohibition of “Lo Ta'asun Ken.”

More on Resh Lakish, including a discussion of reward and punishment, and the relationship between the books of the Torah and those of Ketuvim. Also, the leaders of Israel (Moshe, Sharon, Miriam), and the gifts they received. Also, back to rainfall - and the proof of how it can fall at the behest or in the merit of one individual. Including the particulars of the clouds (and drizzle) that herald (and follow) rain.

One must understand Mishnah before going on. And the way to make sure you know enough is to study more. Which brings us to Resh Lakish's practice of reviewing Mishnah 40 times. R. Ada bar Ahava would review 24 times. [Who's Who (in part): Resh Lakish] Also, the dilemma of what to pray for when confronted with both famine and plague (may we never know this situation). But why can't you pray for two things at the same time?! We have biblical verses to teach that. Plus, in a time of religious persecution, when fasting was not allowed, they decreed a fast as part of their prayer to end the persecution, and they'll actually fast once the persecution is over. Also, an open question whether this tractate verges to the spiritual/metaphysical or to the practical, if religious.

More on the new year for an etrog... Specifically, on etrogim that are from the 6th and 7th years of the shemitah cycle. And the 8th year. Including the concerns of removing the produce from your possession, as needed. And the ongoing efforts to puzzle what's required for each year. Also, trees that bear fruit twice in one year. And those trees that bear fruit before the 15th of Shevat - specifically, olives, dates, and carob - which are disputed whether they are counted according to the time of ripening or the time of picking. With a sidebar to a debate over white figs. Plus, efforts to create the debate between R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish that didn't happen, because R. Yochanan said nothing, whether in acquiescence or rejection.

A. Etrog cutoff deadline: Abaye & Rav Hamnuna & Abtolmos & R. Yohanan & Resh Lakish – earlier year (growth/formation) Rabbi Shimon bar Yehuda – leniencies of both years Usha – later year (picking) B. Trees in general Sponsored by Ralph J. Sutton in Honor of Rabbi Moshe Shamah

The Torah in Parashat Mishpatim (Shemot 22:5) establishes that if a person lit a fire which ended up spreading into his fellow's property, causing damage, then the one who kindled the fire must pay for the damages. Even though the person lit the fire in his own property, he is nevertheless responsible if it spread to his fellow's property and caused damage. The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists as the 56 th Biblical command the obligation upon Bet Din to try these cases, and to hold people accountable for damages caused by fires which they lit. This Misva, of course, is one of many examples of the Torah's concern to ensure that people act responsibly and refrain from reckless behavior which could cause harm to others. Bet Din must hold people accountable for the damages they caused so that people will exercise care and conduct themselves in a responsible fashion. The exception to the guilty party's liability for fire damage is “Tamun” – damage caused to items which were not visible. If the victim had hid utensils, for example, under the shrubbery in his field, and the fire destroyed these utensils, the one who started the fire is not responsible to compensate for the damaged utensils, since the utensils were not visible at the time they were consumed by the fire. The Gemara in Masechet Baba Kama brings a famous debate among the Amoraim as to the nature of a person's liability for damages caused by a fire he kindled. Rabbi Yohanan maintained that “Isho Mishum Hesyo” – one is liable for these damages just as he is liable for damages he causes by shooting an arrow. According to Rabbi Yohanan, when a person lights a fire, then even though it then spread to his fellow's property on its own, or as a result of the wind, the person is considered to have himself damaged that property. Resh Lakish, however, disagrees, noting that whereas an arrow damages because of the person's force – as he pulled back the bow, giving the arrow the power to go forth – the fire spreads as a result of “Ko'ah Aher” – another force, such as the wind. According to Resh Lakish, a person's liability for damages caused by a fire he kindled is “Mi'shum Mamono” – due to the fact that the coal is his property. Just as a person bears liability for damages caused by his animal, because the animal is his property, so is one liable for damages caused by a fire he kindles, of which he is the owner. In other words, Rabbi Yohanan maintained that the person is considered to have personally caused the damage by lighting the fire, whereas Resh Lakish argued that it is the person's property, and not the person himself, that caused the damage. This fundamental debate yields a number of interesting practical ramifications. One involves the case of one who kindles a fire which then spreads into another person's property and causes bodily harm. When it comes to physical injury – as opposed to property damage – Halacha distinguishes between the case of a person who himself caused his fellow bodily harm, and the case where a person's property causes his fellow bodily harm. If the person himself hurts his fellow, the he must make five different payments (which were outlined in Misva #49). According to Rabbi Yohanan, then, if one's fire spread and physically hurt his fellow, then the person who kindled the fire must make all five compensatory payments. According to Resh Lakish, however, the one who lit the fire is not considered to have damaged the victim, and so he needs to only make the basic payment to compensate the victim. Tosafot (Baba Kama 56) assert that this debate also affects the question of whether one is held liable for murder if he intentionally murders by kindling a flame which then spreads to the victim. According to Rabbi Yohanan, it would seem, the guilty party is considered to have actually set fire to the victim, and he should then be liable to the death penalty. According to Resh Lakish, however, the person is not considered to have directly killed, and so he would not be liable to execution. Others disagree with Tosafot, and insist that even Rabbi Yohanan would agree that one would not be considered guilty of murder in such a case. Rabbi Yohanan might concede that a person cannot be considered to have killed without a “Ma'aseh Resiha” – an act of murder. In the case under discussion, the person did not commit such an act, as he merely kindled a fire which the wind then carried to the victim. Therefore, even according to Rabbi Yohanan, perhaps, the person would not be held liable for murder.

A. Why does sekhakh need to be from plants? 1. Resh Lakish – like Gan Eden/Clouds (mist rises from earth to sky = human divine bridge) 2. R. Yohanan 1 – like Hagigah 3. R. Yohanan 2 – harvest festival 4. Rav Hisda – from Nehemiah B. Bundles C. Arrow Shafts D. Stages of Flax processing Sponsored by Muriel and Alexander Seligson

Yoma 81 – Not Eating A. Does food and drink combine? B. Warning for Afflictions 1. Resh Lakish – no source 2. Sifra – Vayikra 23:29 extra pasuk 3. Ravina – Vayikra 23:29 – עצם עצם 4. R. Yishmael – עינוי עינוי 5. Rav Aha – Vayikra 23:32 שבת שבתון 6. Rav Papa – Vayikra 23:32 תשבתו שבתכם C. What is considered edible? Tractate Yoma Sponsored by Z and Marav Dweck in Solidarity with Binyamin Novick and Hayyale Yisrael

The best and brightest of the Babylonian Jews stayed behind and didn't join Ezra in rebuilding the Temple and resettling Eretz Yisrael, thereby earning themselves the reprobation or Reb Yochanan, Resh Lakish and others. What is this machlokes all about?

Comparing the First and Second Temples. First, the numbers. Second, the grievous sins that brought each down. And how to characterize the different eras? Also, the revealed nature of the sins of the First Temple and the hidden nature of the sins of the Second Temple. R. Yochanan and Resh Lakish debate which generation was better... With an eye to a Third Temple. Plus, Rabbah bar bar Hannah helps Resh Lakish and gets puts down for his troubles. Resh Lakish faults the Jews in Babylonia for not returning to Zion when they could have done so.

Challenge to Resh Lakish Baraita supporting R. Yohanan Baraita supporting Resh Lakish שמות כד, יב-יח (יב) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְיָ֜ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה עֲלֵ֥ה אֵלַ֛י הָהָ֖רָה וֶהְיֵה־שָׁ֑ם וְאֶתְּנָ֨ה לְךָ֜ אֶת־לֻחֹ֣ת הָאֶ֗בֶן וְהַתּוֹרָה֙ וְהַמִּצְוָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר כָּתַ֖בְתִּי לְהוֹרֹתָֽם: (יג) וַיָּ֣קָם מֹשֶׁ֔ה וִיהוֹשֻׁ֖עַ מְשָׁרְת֑וֹ וַיַּ֥עַל מֹשֶׁ֖ה אֶל־הַ֥ר הָאֱלֹהִֽים: (יד) וְאֶל־הַזְּקֵנִ֤ים אָמַר֙ שְׁבוּ־לָ֣נוּ בָזֶ֔ה עַ֥ד אֲשֶׁר־נָשׁ֖וּב אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם וְהִנֵּ֨ה אַהֲרֹ֤ן וְחוּר֙ עִמָּכֶ֔ם מִי־בַ֥עַל דְּבָרִ֖ים יִגַּ֥שׁ אֲלֵהֶֽם: (טו) וַיַּ֥עַל מֹשֶׁ֖ה אֶל־הָהָ֑ר וַיְכַ֥ס הֶעָנָ֖ן אֶת־הָהָֽר: (טז) וַיִּשְׁכֹּ֤ן כְּבוֹד־יְיָ֙ עַל־הַ֣ר סִינַ֔י וַיְכַסֵּ֥הוּ הֶעָנָ֖ן שֵׁ֣שֶׁת יָמִ֑ים וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֛ה בַּיּ֥וֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִ֖י מִתּ֥וֹךְ הֶעָנָֽן: (יז) וּמַרְאֵה֙ כְּב֣וֹד יְיָ֔ כְּאֵ֥שׁ אֹכֶ֖לֶת בְּרֹ֣אשׁ הָהָ֑ר לְעֵינֵ֖י בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל: (יח) וַיָּבֹ֥א מֹשֶׁ֛ה בְּת֥וֹךְ הֶעָנָ֖ן וַיַּ֣עַל אֶל־הָהָ֑ר וַיְהִ֤י מֹשֶׁה֙ בָּהָ֔ר אַרְבָּעִ֣ים י֔וֹם וְאַרְבָּעִ֖ים לָֽיְלָה: R. Yose haGalili – six days after Maamad Har Sinai, which is on Sivan 6 R. Akiva – six days before Maamad Har Sinai, which is on Sivan 7 Sponsored by Z and Merav Dweck

Season 2 of That's So Kvetch is in full swing! In this episode, I journey into the terrain of dealing with homosexuality in the Torah. First, I share the scandalous story where Resh Lakish mistakes Rav Yochanan for a woman and is enchanted by him. Then I dive into Judaism's general attitude towards homosexuality. I listened to a super right-wing shiur to get a different perspective and contemplated some big questions like: Why are some Jews against homosexuality? What do Jews value most in Judaism? Should the Torah be a rule book or a lesson book? This episode is just the tip of the iceberg of part of a developing conversation as I attempt to deal with the cognitive dissonances in Judaism. (0:00-4:07)- Intro (4:07-10:53) The Story of Resh Lakish and Rav Yochanan (10:53-13:58) Commentary on the story (Daniel Boyarin) (13:58-17:20) Different Jewish approaches to homosexuality (17:20 -20:28) Is adding to the Torah corrupting it? (20:28-end) My cognitive dissonance

Mention of uncircumcised group first invalidates – why? 1. Only last instant matters & first expression applies 2. Whole process matters & only expressed first 3. He had only first group in mind for windpipe Mishnah Owning Hames during slaughter Where is the Hames? Resh Lakish – in the courtyard R. Yohanan – anywhere “על” means near or anywhere Uncertain warning Who may not own Hames during Pesah slaughter?

Pesahim 37 – Varieties of Baking Methods A. Thick Matza One tefah like face bread (asur) Large batch of bread B. Shaped Matza (asur) C. Taking Halah from Pan-fried bread Resh Lakish – exempt R. Yohanan – required 1. Challenge to Resh Lakish 2. Challenge to Resh Lakish from half-baked matza Minimum amount of baking to be bread 3. Challenge to R. Yohanan Story of Rabbah -> R. Zeira -> Ulah

Pesahim 15 – Two interpretations of “from their words” in the Mishnah Preview of Rabbi Yohanan Interpretation of Resh Lakish – “their words” is Rabbi Yehoshua Mishnah Terumah 8:8 Mishnah Terumah 8:9 Challenge from Tosefta Interpretation of Rabbi Yohanan – “their words” is Rabbi Hanina Support from baraita Support from Tosefta Explanation of end of Mishnah

The trajectory of Judaism seems to be a downward one: the era of prophecy and revelation in the Holy Land is past, while the current era is one of divine concealment. Indeed, according to Rabbi Yehudah HaLevi – whose opinion accords with Resh Lakish – we should be focused now on recovery, on regaining our lost glory. But there is an alternative, diametrically opposite approach to this matter. According to Rabbi Yochanan and others, exile itself has a positive purpose, and Judaism was always supposed to be transformed and enriched by it. Hashem's complete revelation can be attained only subsequent to His concealment; the early years of glory were really an advance, early sense of what will be fully realized after the historical process of exile and redemption. For this episode's sources, click here Please take a moment to subscribe and leave a review on Apple Podcasts. Thanks for listening! You can email Rabbi Burton with questions or comments at oros.yaakov@gmail.com