Podcasts about Shmuel

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2025 48:13

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

jewish torah rav rab vayikra paschal shmuel mishna gemara tishrei rava rabbi shimon kohen gadol rabbi yochanan

Zevachim 18 - Yom Kippur - October 2, 10 Tishrei

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2025 36:28

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

temple torah yom kippur rav shmuel tishrei

Zevachim 18 - Yom Kippur - October 2, 10 Tishrei

relationships montreal breeze rosa parks shabbat rosh hashanah power of one rosh hashana shofar shmuel elkanah one soul moral courage wallenberg raoul wallenberg eventssupport

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2025 36:28

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

temple torah yom kippur rav shmuel tishrei

Be the Breeze: The Power of One Soul on Rosh Hashanah

Daily Jewish Thought

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2025 21:25

Rabbi Yisroel Bernath recorded this sermon before Rosh Hashana as he was preparing and we are sharing it with you... of course it's nothing close to the magic of Rosh Hashana at Chabad NDG in Montreal. Rabbi Yisroel Bernath's Rosh Hashanah sermon reminds us that the world doesn't change through headlines or massive movements alone, it turns on small hinges. From Newton's apple to Rosa Parks' quiet defiance, from Elkanah's changed walking route to Raoul Wallenberg's forged passports, history is reshaped by individuals who cared enough to act.Each of us is that “breeze” a gentle but decisive force nudging another soul toward light, dignity, and hope. The shofar calls us not to despair at the scale of the world's darkness, but to rise with courage, to see that every mitzvah matters, and to live as though even one small act can tilt the future. This Rosh Hashanah, the call is clear: be the breeze that shifts the course of another's life.Key TakeawaysSmall Acts Matter: World-changing moments often begin with the smallest gestures, a smile, a word of encouragement, an invitation to Shabbat.History Turns on the Individual: From scientists to prophets, seamstresses to diplomats, one person's choice has often redirected the course of nations.Jewish Legacy of Influence: The story of Elkanah and Shmuel teaches that our steps, words, and presence ripple far beyond what we see.Moral Courage is Contagious: Rosa Parks' bus seat and Wallenberg's forged passports remind us that courage inspires movements.The Shofar's Call: Rosh Hashanah summons us to battle despair with action, to hear the call of responsibility, and to know that every soul counts.#RoshHashana #RoshHashanah #HIghHolidays #Judaism #Rabbi #yisroelbernath #chabad #Antisemitism #Jewish #Jewishfuture #JewishIdentity #resilience #Sermon Sign up for "The Forgiveness Lab" HERE: theloverabbi.com/eventsSupport the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

Be the Breeze: The Power of One Soul on Rosh Hashanah

Kabbalah for Everyone

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 25, 2025 21:25

Send us a textRabbi Yisroel Bernath recorded this sermon before Rosh Hashana as he was preparing and we are sharing it with you... of course it's nothing close to the magic of Rosh Hashana at Chabad NDG in Montreal. Rabbi Yisroel Bernath's Rosh Hashanah sermon reminds us that the world doesn't change through headlines or massive movements alone, it turns on small hinges. From Newton's apple to Rosa Parks' quiet defiance, from Elkanah's changed walking route to Raoul Wallenberg's forged passports, history is reshaped by individuals who cared enough to act.Each of us is that “breeze” a gentle but decisive force nudging another soul toward light, dignity, and hope. The shofar calls us not to despair at the scale of the world's darkness, but to rise with courage, to see that every mitzvah matters, and to live as though even one small act can tilt the future. This Rosh Hashanah, the call is clear: be the breeze that shifts the course of another's life.Key TakeawaysSmall Acts Matter: World-changing moments often begin with the smallest gestures, a smile, a word of encouragement, an invitation to Shabbat.History Turns on the Individual: From scientists to prophets, seamstresses to diplomats, one person's choice has often redirected the course of nations.Jewish Legacy of Influence: The story of Elkanah and Shmuel teaches that our steps, words, and presence ripple far beyond what we see.Moral Courage is Contagious: Rosa Parks' bus seat and Wallenberg's forged passports remind us that courage inspires movements.The Shofar's Call: Rosh Hashanah summons us to battle despair with action, to hear the call of responsibility, and to know that every soul counts.#RoshHashana #RoshHashanah #HIghHolidays #Judaism #Rabbi #yisroelbernath #chabad #Antisemitism #Jewish #Jewishfuture #JewishIdentity #resilience #Sermon Sign up for "The Forgiveness Lab" HERE: theloverabbi.com/eventsSupport the showGot your own question for Rabbi Bernath? He can be reached at rabbi@jewishndg.com or http://www.theloverabbi.comSingle? You can make a profile on www.JMontreal.com and Rabbi Bernath will help you find that special someone.Donate and support Rabbi Bernath's work http://www.jewishndg.com/donateFollow Rabbi Bernath's YouTube Channel https://www.youtube.com/user/ybernathAccess Rabbi Bernath's Articles on Relationships https://medium.com/@loverabbi

relationships montreal breeze rosa parks shabbat rosh hashanah power of one rosh hashana shofar shmuel elkanah one soul moral courage wallenberg raoul wallenberg eventssupport

Zevachim 8 - September 22, 29 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 22, 2025 48:22

Study Guide Zevachim 8 If any of the four sacrificial rites of a sin offering - slaughtering, collecting the blood, carrying it, or sprinkling it - are performed with the intent of a different sacrifice or for a different owner, the offering is disqualified. The Gemara investigates the source of this law. Initially, it cites verses that establish the requirement to slaughter, collect, and sprinkle the blood with the correct intent, both for the appropriate sacrifice and for the proper owner, and that failure to do so invalidates the offering. However, these sources do not explicitly prove that intent for a different sacrifice disqualifies the offering, nor that slaughtering and collecting must be done for the correct owner. The Gemara first attempts to derive this from verses concerning the sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper, but both are rejected due to unique stringencies in each case. It then explores combinations - nazirite and leper, nazirite and standard sin offering, or leper and standard sin offering - but each pairing is also dismissed, as each has its own distinctive stringency. Ultimately, Rava derives the requirement to perform all rites with the correct intent, from both the perspective of the sacrifice and the owner, from a verse that juxtaposes the peace offering with the sin offering, as the source for the basic law of proper intent is found in the laws of the peace offering, as explained in Zevachim 4. The verses previously cited in the sugya are then reinterpreted to teach that without proper designation, the offering is invalid—based on the principle that in kodashim (sacrificial laws), repetition in the Torah indicates necessity (l’akev). The proof from the verses above pertains to a standard sin offering. The Gemara then asks: how do we know the same applies to a sin offering brought for idol worship or to a sliding-scale offering (korban oleh veyored)? These cases are derived through comparative analysis with other offerings mentioned previously. The discussion shifts to the case of a Pesach offering. If one designates an animal for the Passover sacrifice but slaughters it on a day that is not Pesach, the offering is not disqualified and is instead brought as a peace offering. The father of Shmuel cites a verse from Vayikra 3:6, which discusses peace offerings, as the source. However, a difficulty arises: the verse may only support the case where the animal was offered as a peace offering. If it were offered with the intent for a different sacrifice, it might be disqualified. To address this, the Gemara explains that the term zevach in the verse encompasses other types of offerings. Yet this resolution is unsatisfactory, as it could still be argued that if the Pesach was offered with intent for any other sacrifice, it should be brought as that sacrifice, not necessarily as a peace offering. To resolve this, the Gemara presents two alternative derivations from the verse and proceeds to analyze their validity.

passover torah pesach elul vayikra shmuel gemara rava

Zevachim 8 - September 22, 29 Elul

The 'Yiddish Voice' Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 22, 2025 48:22

Study Guide Zevachim 8 If any of the four sacrificial rites of a sin offering - slaughtering, collecting the blood, carrying it, or sprinkling it - are performed with the intent of a different sacrifice or for a different owner, the offering is disqualified. The Gemara investigates the source of this law. Initially, it cites verses that establish the requirement to slaughter, collect, and sprinkle the blood with the correct intent, both for the appropriate sacrifice and for the proper owner, and that failure to do so invalidates the offering. However, these sources do not explicitly prove that intent for a different sacrifice disqualifies the offering, nor that slaughtering and collecting must be done for the correct owner. The Gemara first attempts to derive this from verses concerning the sin offerings of a nazirite and a leper, but both are rejected due to unique stringencies in each case. It then explores combinations - nazirite and leper, nazirite and standard sin offering, or leper and standard sin offering - but each pairing is also dismissed, as each has its own distinctive stringency. Ultimately, Rava derives the requirement to perform all rites with the correct intent, from both the perspective of the sacrifice and the owner, from a verse that juxtaposes the peace offering with the sin offering, as the source for the basic law of proper intent is found in the laws of the peace offering, as explained in Zevachim 4. The verses previously cited in the sugya are then reinterpreted to teach that without proper designation, the offering is invalid—based on the principle that in kodashim (sacrificial laws), repetition in the Torah indicates necessity (l’akev). The proof from the verses above pertains to a standard sin offering. The Gemara then asks: how do we know the same applies to a sin offering brought for idol worship or to a sliding-scale offering (korban oleh veyored)? These cases are derived through comparative analysis with other offerings mentioned previously. The discussion shifts to the case of a Pesach offering. If one designates an animal for the Passover sacrifice but slaughters it on a day that is not Pesach, the offering is not disqualified and is instead brought as a peace offering. The father of Shmuel cites a verse from Vayikra 3:6, which discusses peace offerings, as the source. However, a difficulty arises: the verse may only support the case where the animal was offered as a peace offering. If it were offered with the intent for a different sacrifice, it might be disqualified. To address this, the Gemara explains that the term zevach in the verse encompasses other types of offerings. Yet this resolution is unsatisfactory, as it could still be argued that if the Pesach was offered with intent for any other sacrifice, it should be brought as that sacrifice, not necessarily as a peace offering. To resolve this, the Gemara presents two alternative derivations from the verse and proceeds to analyze their validity.

passover torah pesach elul vayikra shmuel gemara rava

Shmuel Bak, Painter and Holocaust Survivor from Vilna

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 18, 2025 69:36

Shmuel Bak (Samuel Bak), the internationally renowned artist and Holocaust survivor, presented in a lengthy conversation with his friend, The Yiddish Voice co-host Sholem Beinfeld. Excerpts from Pucker Gallery's page about Bak: Samuel Bak was born in Vilna, Poland in 1933, at a crucial moment in modern history. From 1940 to 1944, Vilna was under Soviet, then German occupation. Bak's artistic talent was first recognized during an exhibition of his work in the Ghetto of Vilna when he was nine years old. While he and his mother survived, his father and four grandparents all perished at the hands of the Nazis. At the end of the war, he fled with his mother to the Landsberg Displaced Persons Camp, where he enrolled in painting lessons at the Blocherer School in Munich. In 1948, they immigrated to the newly established state of Israel. He studied at the Bezalel Art School in Jerusalem and completed his mandatory service in the Israeli army. In 1956, he went to Paris to continue his education at the École des Beaux Arts.... Bak has exhibited extensively in major museums, galleries, and universities throughout Europe, Israel, and the United States. He lived and worked in Tel Aviv, Paris, Rome, New York, and Lausanne before settling in Massachusetts in 1993 and becoming an American citizen. Bak has been the subject of articles, scholarly works, and over twenty books, most notably a 400-page monograph entitled Between Worlds. In 2001, he published his touching memoir, Painted in Words, which has been translated into four languages, and a biography entitled Art & Life: The Story of Samuel Bak was published in 2023. Related links: Wikipedia page for Samuel Bak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Bak Pucker Gallery page for Samuel Bak: https://www.puckergallery.com/samuel-bak Samuel Bak Museum: The Learning Center (Omaha, NE): https://www.unomaha.edu/samuel-bak-museum-the-learning-center/ Sholem Beinfeld is co-editor-in-chief of the Comprehensive Yiddish-English Dictionary and Professor of History, Emeritus, Washington University, St. Louis. He translated The Rudashevsky Diary, which was published as the November, 2024, issue of The Jewish Quarterly. אַ כּ‫תיבֿה וחתימה טובֿה! Featured Announcements for Rosh Hashona: Greetings on behalf of the League for Yiddish / די ייִדיש-ליגע by Gitl Schaechter-Viswanath, Board Chair. Recorded Sept. 9, 2025. Greetings on behalf of the American Association of Jewish Holocaust Survivors and Descendants of Greater Boston, featuring members Mary Ehrlich, Rosalie Reszelbach and Tania Lefman (Treasurer). Recorded Sept. 9 and 10, 2025. Greetings from Eli Dovek ז״ל, late proprietor of our sponsor Israel Bookshop, Brookline, MA. Recorded in 2009. Greetings on behalf of the Boston Workers Circle / דער באָסטאָנער אַרבעטער-רינג by Libe Gritz. Recorded Sept. 17, 2025. Greetings by The Yiddish Voice co-hosts Leye Schporer-Leavitt, Sholem Beinfeld and Dovid Braun. Recorded Sept. 17...

Zevachim 3 - September 17, 24 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2025 47:43

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

comparison reaching israelis internal hebrew torah elul rav shmuel mishna gemara gittin hakadosh baruch hu chavah

Zevachim 3 - September 17, 24 Elul

jewish press phillips talmud reclaimed modern era shmuel meiri

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 17, 2025 47:43

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

comparison reaching israelis internal hebrew torah elul rav shmuel mishna gemara gittin hakadosh baruch hu chavah

Talmud Reclaimed (with Shmuel Phillips)

Seforimchatter

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 16, 2025 79:21

#396> Episode sponsored by Da'at Press.Too often, we reach for the same few books year after year. Meanwhile, profound works of rabbinic wisdom—voices like Seadya Gaon, Meiri, R. Eliyahu Benamozegh—remain unread, untranslated, or unknown.That's where Daʿat Press comes in. They're publishing faithful and beautiful editions of classic Jewish works—translations, introductions, and typesetting that bring these texts to life. And for the Yamim Noraim season, you can get 25% off everything at www.daat.press with the code SEFORIM—but only until Motsae Yom Kippur, September, 31. > Visit https://www.daat.press/ and use code SEFORIM for 25% off (and FREE shipping)> To purchase , "Talmud Reclaimed: An Ancien Text in a Modern Era": https://amzn.to/4n1OQJl> To purchase "Judaism Reclaimed": https://amzn.to/3Vm6Guu> To contact Shmuel Phillips: shmuli.phillips@gmail.com> Website: www.TalmudReclaimed.com> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp status: https://wa.me/message/TI343XQHHMHPN1> To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

Horayot 12 - Shabbat September 13, 20 Elul

clarity whatsapp receive dose rosh hashanah silber daily dose shlomo shmuel

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 12, 2025 47:40

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

kings temple shabbat elul rosh hashana rav shmuel mishna gemara rava

Daily Dose #2,443: Rosh Hashanah Clarity - R' Shmuel Silber

TorahAnytime Daily Dose

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 12, 2025 2:04

Full TorahAnytime Lecture Video or Audio More classes from R' Shmuel Silber ⭐ 2,443

Prepare for Rosh Hashana with Rabbi Shmuel Cohen

Shiurei Yeshurun - Rabbi Zev Cohen

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 12, 2025 19:04

Rabbi Yeshurun explored the complexities of understanding Rosh Hashanah and discussed prayer practices, emphasizing the importance of intentional prayer and comprehension of prayer words. He explained the concept of Malucha and its initial challenges, while also sharing insights about Kabbalah and teshuva during Rosh Hashanah. Yeshurun concluded by discussing Rosh Hashanah as an annual exam and mission statement, stressing the need for authenticity in connecting with Kabbalah and Shema through daily practices.

rabbi kabbalah rosh hashanah shema rosh hashana shmuel yeshurun

Horayot 12 - Shabbat September 13, 20 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 12, 2025 47:40

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

kings temple shabbat elul rosh hashana rav shmuel mishna gemara rava

Episode 490 – From Covert Missions to Facehuggers: Secrets Everywhere

The Infamous Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 10, 2025

What If the CIA and Weyland-Yutani Merged? (Spoiler: Everyone Dies) This week on the podcast, Alien: Earth Episode 5 and Episodes 3 & 4 of The Terminal List: Dark Wolf reviews. Episode Index Intro: 0:07 Alien Earth: The Terminal List: Alien: Earth (FX/Hulu) Episode 5 – “In Space, No One…” Summary: A flashback shows the events that occurred on the Maginot starting seventeen days before it reached Earth. Junior security officer Clem wakes Morrow from cryosleep and tells him there has been a fire in one of the containment rooms. Two facehuggers have escaped and latched upon ship’s captain Dinsdale and science officer Bronski. Dinsdale dies from the facehugger’s acid blood when medical officer Rahim attempts to cut the tail from his neck. After being told by engineer Shmuel that the ship’s navigational systems were also damaged in the fire, Morrow concludes that a crew member has sabotaged the ship. Executive officer Zaveri assumes command of the ship, but Morrow threatens to relieve her if she does not prioritize the creatures above the crew. Bronski is placed in cryo-sleep to prevent the gestation of the Xenomorph, but this fails. In science officer Chibuzo’s lab, one leech specimen manages to open its test tube from the inside, and lays its larvae in her water bottle. Witnessing this, the Ocellus also escapes after Chibuzo fails to seal its containment vessel. Apprentice engineer Malachite drinks the water, and the larvae kill him from the inside; Chibuzo and Rahim are also killed by their defensive toxic gas when trying to extract them. Witnessing this, Zavari is in shock and Morrow relieves her of command. After being interrogated by Morrow, navigator Teng is killed by the fully-grown Xenomorph. Chief engineer Petrovich is revealed to be behind the sabotage at the order of Boy Kavalier, who promises him a hybrid body if the ship crashes in Prodigy territory. Petrovich kills Clem and is in turn killed by Morrow, who retreats to the control room and seals himself in. Zaveri is killed by the Xenomorph outside the door. With everyone dead, Morrow locks himself in the panic room and awaits the crash. Back in the present, Morrow meets with Yutani, offering to retrieve the specimens by force and kill Kavalier. Writer/Director: Written and directed by Noah Hawley Cast Highlights: Richa Moorjani (Zaveri), Sandra Yi Sencindiver (Yutani), Amir Boutrous (Rahim), Karen Aldridge (Chibuzo), Michael Smiley (Shmuel), Jamie Bisping (Malachite), Andy Yu (Teng), Max Rinehart (Bronski), Enzo Cilenti (Petrovich), Tom Moya (Clem). Air Date & Stats: Aired September 2, 2025, on FX and FX on Hulu. Duration: 64 minutes. Viewership: ~0.361 million households; 0.10 rating (18–49 demo). Style & Reception: Critics lauded its homages to Ridley Scott's original Alien, elevated tension, and emotional depth. Called a “banger” and “standout” bottle episode. Out of 5 In Space, No One… Hears You in the Loving Embrace of a Facehugger Darryl: 4.15/5 Brian: 4.28/5 The Terminal List: Dark (Amazon Prime) Episode 3 – “What’s Past Is Prologue” Summary: Vahid and Cyrus Rahimi attend a conference on the Iranian nuclear agreement in Geneva, and later meet with Minister Yousef Saedi. Farooq, Landry, and another CIA officer, Ish Reinhart, join Haverford’s team. Danawi’s phone shows he received $5 million in cryptocurrency to deliver to Balaz Molnar, a nuclear physics professor in Budapest. Texts come through from another number identified as Thana Haddad. Farooq questions her and discovers she is Danawi’s estranged daughter, but can’t bring himself to follow orders to kill her. Varon agrees not to tell the others after he confesses that, as a teenager, his sisters were raped by Uday Hussein, but he later helped the Americans in eliminating him. Edwards and Perash bond, but he becomes more estranged from his wife stateside. Impersonating Danawi, Farooq meets with Molnar and purchases proof of concept for proprietary bearings he is selling to Iran, which will enable them to still enrich uranium with the smaller number of centrifuges mandated by the nuclear deal. A third-party team tail Farooq after the meeting until he is extracted by Landry, and one kills Reinhart. Edwards has Varon cut CCTV and guns the man down on the Budapest Metro, taking a photo for identification before being extracted himself. Writer & Director: Directed by Liz Friedlander, written by Naomi Iizuka and Max Adams. Cast Highlights: Taylor Kitsch (Ben Edwards), Tom Hopper (Raife Hastings), Chris Pratt (James Reece), Rona‑Lee Shimon (Eliza Perash), Dar Salim (Mo Farooq), Rashidz Tzarfati (Tal Varon), Robert Wisdom (Jed Haverford), among others. Air Date: Premiered August 27, 2025 alongside Episodes 1 & 2. Episode 4 – “The Sound of the Guns” Summary: Hastings is contacted by a former Selous Scouts associate of his father, who confirms Haverford manages a long-term asset in Tehran codenamed Shepherd. Minister Saedi thanks Cyrus for his clandestine work, but Vahid begins to question their actions of putting nuclear weapons in the hands of such men. The team relocates to Munich, discovering the third party is the nuclear proliferation Khalid Network, working to move the bearings into Iran before the nuclear deal is finalised. Haverford plans to intercept the convoy in Geneva and swap Molnar's bearings for fakes, rendering Iran's new facility useless. He assures a suspicious Hastings that Shepherd’s intel is legitimate. Edwards and Perash kiss whilst scouting a location. Varon secures the fake bearings from Mossad agent Mordechai Ofer. Hastings becomes concerned about collateral damage with the convoy ambush plan and Edwards’ change in attitude. Edwards argues their current posting allows them to take real action compared to serving under military red tape. Haverford kills Molnar. Impersonating Austrian Federal Police, the team attacks the Khalid Network convoy and obtains the bearings, but are met by a large team of shooters on exfil. Farooq is injured and extracted by Landry. The Israelis betray the team, hacking Haverford's phone and stealing the bearings after incapacitating Edwards. Writer & Director: Directed by Liz Friedlander, written by Kenny Sheard. Air Date: Dropped September 3, 2025. Out of 10 Wood Chopping Like Steve Rogers in the Woods Darryl: 8.2/10 Brian: 7.88/10 Contact Us The Infamous Podcast can be found wherever podcasts are found on the Interwebs, feel free to subscribe and follow along on social media. And don't be shy about helping out the show with a 5-star review on Apple Podcasts to help us move up in the ratings. @infamouspodcast facebook/infamouspodcast instagram/infamouspodcast stitcher Apple Podcasts Spotify Google Play iHeart Radio contact@infamouspodcast.com Our theme music is ‘Skate Beat’ provided by Michael Henry, with additional music provided by Michael Henry. Find more at MeetMichaelHenry.com. The Infamous Podcast is hosted by Brian Tudor and Darryl Jasper, is recorded in Cincinnati, Ohio. The show is produced and edited by Brian Tudor. Subscribe today!

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans. The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering. There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.

Horayot 4 - September 5, 12 Elul

Detailed Daf Overview - Project Likkutei Torah / Torah Ohr

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2025 47:59

This week's learning is dedicated by Medinah Korn in loving memory of her mother, Rosalie Katchen, Shoshana Raizl bat Avraham Yehoshua ve-Baila Toibe, z"l, on her 25th yahrzeit. She left a profound legacy for her family and many devoted friends who continue to learn from her to this day. Yehi zichra baruch. Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of David's mother Ethel Petegorsky Geffen, on her 21st yarhzeit. She was devoted to her family and the Jewish community, volunteering on many synagogue and community committees and projects. Her two sons made aliyah to Israel and her daughter has had a long career in service of the American Jewish community. Today's daf is sponsored by Ayla Ginat in loving memory of Barak ben Lipa and Shlomit. If the Beit Din realized they made an erroneous ruling, but an individual is unaware and transgresses based on their original ruling, do they need to bring an individual sacrifice? While the Msihna brought two opinions, a braita brings four. Rabbi Meir obligates the individual to bring a sin offering, Rabbi Shimon exempts, Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus view it as a case of doubt, but Rabbi Elazar obligates in a provisional guilt offering, while Sumchus does not. Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Yossi bar Avin bring examples of other cases of doubt to explain the difference in approach between Rabbi Elazar and Sumchus – to what extent do we expect the individual to be aware that the rabbis corrected their mistake? Rava explains the disagreement in the Mishna between Ben Azai and Rabbi Akiva to be regarding a case where the court realized their mistake on the day that the individual in question was still in the city but preparing to leave. As in the previously mentioned debate, the question is to what extent the individual is expected to be aware of the court’s reversal of their decision while they are busy involved in their upcoming travel plans. The Mishna taught that the case of a communal sin offering is only in a case where the court’s erroneous ruling was to uproot part of a mitzva, not a complete mitzva. A braita brings one derivation, Chizkiya has another, and Rav Ashi brings a third. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the ruling has to relate to something that the Saducees do not agree with, i.e. something rabbinic in origin and not able to be understood from the simple reading of the verses in the Torah. The reason for this is simple – if it is clear from the Torah and the court rules otherwise, and the people follow, this cannot be understood as unwitting, as it is closer to an intentional violation. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Yehuda from the examples brought in the Mishna, but each one is resolved. Rav Yosef asks: If the court rules there is no prohibition to plow on Shabbat, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? The Gemara tries to answer the question by deriving it from cases in our Mishna, but is not able to. Rabbi Zeira asks if the court rules that there is no Shabbat observance in the Shmita year, is that considered uprooting a complete mitzva or a partial one? Ravina brings a source from a false prophet to answer that it is considered a partial mitzva, and they would be obligated to bring a communal sin offering. There are several cases where there is an issue with judges – either disqualified judges, or the head judge was not there, where there is no communal sin offering, as the case is considered closer to intentional.

Likkutei Torah Parshas Vaeschanan Daf 2 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Braun

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2025 33:12

rabbi torah braun chabad shmuel parshas chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Davening Takeaways from Likkutei Torah Parshas Vaeschanan Daf 2 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Braun

takeaways rabbi torah braun chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 5, 2025 7:23

Horayot 3 - September 4, 11 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 51:15

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

israel jews torah elul rav shmuel mishna gemara rabbi shimon rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar beit din

Horayot 3 - September 4, 11 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 51:15

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

israel jews torah elul rav shmuel mishna gemara rabbi shimon rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar beit din

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Devarim Daf 1 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad devarim shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 4, 2025 4:39

Horayot 2 - September 3, 10 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 3, 2025 52:44

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.

rami elul shmuel hama mishna gemara uncle phil rava rabbi yehuda beit din

Horayot 2 - September 3, 10 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 3, 2025 52:44

This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.

rami elul shmuel hama mishna gemara uncle phil rava rabbi yehuda beit din

Avodah Zarah 75 - September 1, 8 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2025 46:14

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

jews metal borrowed midian elul rav bamidbar shmuel yitzchak avodah endfragment startfragment rabbi yossi adam dicker

Avodah Zarah 75 - September 1, 8 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 1, 2025 46:14

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

jews metal borrowed midian elul rav bamidbar shmuel yitzchak avodah endfragment startfragment rabbi yossi adam dicker

Avodah Zarah 73: Amoraim Agree and Disagree

Talking Talmud

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2025 16:16

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

disagree rav shmuel avodah mixtures yochanan resh lakish

Avodah Zarah 73 - Shabbat August 30, 6 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2025 43:09

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

shabbat elul rav shmuel ravin mishna gemara avodah rabbi yochanan

Avodah Zarah 73 - Shabbat August 30, 6 Elul

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2025 43:09

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

shabbat elul rav shmuel ravin mishna gemara avodah rabbi yochanan

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parsha Naso Daf 96 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 29, 2025 3:15

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad naso parsha shmuel davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Maasei Daf 95 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 28, 2025 5:02

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Maasei Daf 94 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 27, 2025 1:26

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Maasei Daf 93 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2025 4:28

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Maasei Daf 92 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 25, 2025 3:12

Davening Takeaway from Likkutei Torah Parshas Maasei Daf 91 w/ Rabbi Shmuel Weinstein

takeaways rabbi torah weinstein chabad shmuel parshas davening chassidus daf yomi alter rebbe

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 24, 2025 2:28

The Honest Deal: How Simple Integrity Won the Market

Fluent Fiction - Hebrew

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 11, 2025 13:33 Transcription Available

Fluent Fiction - Hebrew: The Honest Deal: How Simple Integrity Won the Market Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/he/episode/2025-08-11-22-34-02-he Story Transcript:He: השוק בעיר העתיקה ירושלים היה מלא חיים.En: The market in the Old City of Jerusalem was full of life.He: סוחרים קראו בקול ללקוחות, והתבלינים הפיצו ריחות עזים באוויר.En: Merchants called out loudly to customers, and the spices filled the air with strong aromas.He: הבדים הצבעוניים השתלשלו מדוכנים מעוטרים, קורנים באור השמש הבוהקת של סוף הקיץ.En: Colorful fabrics hung down from decorated stalls, glowing in the bright end-of-summer sun.He: בין כל ההמון היו ארי ושרה, שני אחים צעירים.En: Among all the crowd were Ari and Sarah, two young siblings.He: הם עמדו ליד דוכן הטקסטילים שלהם, מחכים לקונים.En: They stood by their textile stall, waiting for buyers.He: ארי היה סוחר טקסטיל חכם וממולח.En: Ari was a wise and shrewd textile merchant.He: הוא תמיד חיפש את העסקה הבאה, מה שיפתח דלתות לעסקאות גדולות יותר.En: He was always looking for the next deal, something that would open doors to larger transactions.He: שרה, אחותו, העדיפה את הצד החברתי של השוק.En: Sarah, his sister, preferred the social side of the market.He: היא אהבה לשוחח עם אנשים, להקשיב וללמוד מהם.En: She loved talking to people, listening and learning from them.He: באותו יום הקיץ, סוחר זר הגיע לשוק.En: That summer day, a foreign merchant arrived at the market.He: כל הסוחרים ידעו שהאיש הזה מחפש לקנות כמות גדולה של בדים.En: All the traders knew this man was looking to buy a large quantity of fabrics.He: זו הייתה הזדמנות שלא כדאי לפספס.En: It was an opportunity not to be missed.He: גם ארי וגם יריבו הגדול בשוק, שמואל, רצו לזכות בלבו של הסוחר.En: Both Ari and his great rival in the market, Shmuel, wanted to win over the merchant's favor.He: שמואל ניסה להוריד מחירים ולמשוך את תשומת הלב של הסוחר הזר.En: Shmuel tried to drop prices and capture the foreign merchant's attention.He: ארי התחיל להתלבט.En: Ari began to hesitate.He: האם כדאי לו להרגיש לגיטימי להשיב מלחמה ולנסות להוריד את שמואל באופן לא הוגן?En: Should he feel justified to retaliate and try to undercut Shmuel unfairly?He: שרה לא הייתה שקטה לגבי זה.En: Sarah was uneasy about it.He: היא האמינה בצדק והגינות ולא הסכימה עם השיטות ששקל ארי.En: She believed in justice and fairness and disagreed with the tactics Ari was considering.He: כשארי הלך לפגוש את הסוחר הזר, הלב שלו פעם חזק.En: When Ari went to meet the foreign merchant, his heart was pounding hard.He: שרה עמדה מאחוריו, ידיה שלובות וגבותיה מוחזקות בלחץ קל.En: Sarah stood behind him, her hands clasped and her brows slightly furrowed.He: היא הביטה בארי במבט שהעניק לו כוח ואומץ.En: She looked at Ari with a gaze that gave him strength and courage.He: במהלך המפגש, ארי הרגיש את הפיתוי לשחק במרמה, אבל לבסוף הציע עסקה הוגנת.En: During the meeting, Ari felt the temptation to play dirty, but ultimately he offered a fair deal.He: הוא הבין שאת התמיכה והאהבה של אחותו הוא לא רוצה להפסיד.En: He realized that his sister's support and love were something he did not want to lose.He: הסוחר הזר חייך בהוקרה.En: The foreign merchant smiled appreciatively.He: הוא הבין והעריך את כנותו של ארי.En: He understood and valued Ari's honesty.He: חדשות הטוב התפשטו במהרה.En: The good news quickly spread.He: ארי ושרה זכו בחוזה.En: Ari and Sarah secured the contract.He: העסק שלהם עמד לגדול.En: Their business was about to grow.He: שמואל נשאר עם מזוודות מלאות בסחורה לא נמכרת.En: Shmuel was left with suitcases full of unsold goods.He: ארי למד להעריך את כוחו של יושר והבין שבעצם זו היא שרה שנתנה לו את הכוח להצליח באמת.En: Ari learned to appreciate the power of honesty and realized that it was actually Sarah who gave him the strength to truly succeed. Vocabulary Words:market: שוקmerchants: סוחריםaromas: ריחותfabrics: בדיםstalls: דוכניםtextile: טקסטילshrewd: ממולחtransactions: עסקאותforeign: זרattention: תשומת לבhesitate: להתלבטjustified: לגיטימיretaliate: להשיב מלחמהunfairly: באופן לא הוגןjustice: צדקcourage: אומץtemptation: פיתויhonesty: כנותappreciatively: בהוקרהcontract: חוזהrival: יריבsecured: זכוgoods: סחורהopportunity: הזדמנותbrows: גבותclasped: שלובותspread: התפשטוvalued: העריךstrength: כוחsucceed: להצליחBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/fluent-fiction-hebrew--5818690/support.

simple market storytelling jerusalem integrity honest hebrew old city shmuel vocabulary words en all en among

Navi - Shmuel 2 (Men's) Perek 5 - A Step Further into the Greatness of Dovid HaMelech

Shiurei Yeshurun - Rabbi Zev Cohen

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2025 22:38

greatness navi shmuel perek dovid hamelech

Navi - Shmuel 2 Perek 5 - A Step Further into the Greatness of Dovid HaMelech

Shiurei Yeshurun - Rabbi Zev Cohen

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 4, 2025 22:42

greatness navi shmuel perek dovid hamelech

Why Rav Shach rarely quotes the Birchas Shmuel

Rav Gershon Ribner

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 1, 2025 3:04

quotes shmuel rav shach

This Tisha Ba'av, turn tears into Action (ft. Shmuel Sackett)

Jews Shmooze

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 30, 2025 30:19

Hear about the groundbreaking, first of its kind initiative called Uniting Torah which unites the 4 Torah worlds. Let's show Hashem that the divisions of the past no longer define us. Now every Jew can support all Torah worlds equally. This time, we give to each other. www.UnitingTorah.com/js

action jews tears torah hashem shmuel sackett

Avodah Zarah 36 - July 24, 28 Tamuz