Podcasts about Shmuel

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

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

#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

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?  

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

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.

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?  

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.    

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.    

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.      

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.      

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.  

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.  

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

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

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

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

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.

De negenjarige Bruno weet niets over de Jodenvervolging. Tot hij Shmuel ontmoet, een jongen aan de andere kant van het prikkeldraad die een gestreepte pyjama draagt. Uitgegeven door J.M. Meulenhoff Spreker: Jeroen Spitzenberger

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.

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

Ateret Violet Shmuel is the founder and director of Indigenous Bridges, a nonprofit and nonpartisan international organization dedicated to the advancements of Indigenous communities across the world.For more, you can follow the show on Instagram @GraceforimpactpodcastProduced by Peoples Media Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Why shemen and yayin was asur machlokes rav and Shmuel and the gezeros of 18 things from Hillel and shamai

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

Today's daf is sponsored by Doreen Samuels for the shloshim of her dear mother, Elaine Charlton, Ella bat Rachmiel v'Riva Leah, z"l, on 23rd July - 27th Tammuz 5785. She was so proud of my Jewish learning." Rav and Shmuel disagree about the reason and origin of the prohibition on consuming oil from non-Jews. Rav maintains that Daniel instituted the ban to prevent intermarriage, while Shmuel attributes it to concerns of kashrut, arguing that the oil was placed in vessels previously used for non-kosher foods, causing flavor absorption. Three objections are raised against Rav’s view, prompting revisions based on other teachings. Rav holds that Daniel prohibited the oil within city limits, while Hillel and Shamai's students extended the prohibition to the fields as part of the eighteen decrees enacted on a day when Shamai’s students outnumbered Hillel’s and successfully passed rulings by majority. That same day, wine and bread from non-Jews were also banned due to concerns related to their daughters—potentially leading to idol worship and “something else.” Two interpretations are offered regarding "their daughters." Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak claims that the rabbis designated all non-Jewish females as possessing nidda impurity from birth, while Genieva, quoting Rav, suggests the concern was intermarriage. The Gemara challenges Rav’s reasoning—intermarriage is already prohibited by Torah law. After a chain of responses and further inquiries, the conclusion is that Rav saw the decree as either a prohibition on marrying non-Jews outside the seven nations (if Torah law applies only to those) or a ban on seclusion with a non-Jewish woman. To what was the "something else" referring?

Yahrtzeit Yomi #1562!!כז תמוזRav Shmuel RozovskyRosh Yeshivas Ponovezhרב שמואל ב״ר מיכל דוד רוזובסקיראש ישיבת פונוב׳יז(1913 - 1979)---------------------------------------------------Tammuz Yahrtzeits!!1. First Bobover Rebbe, Reb Yonah Minsker2. Mike Tress3. Lubavitcher Rebbe, Rav Shneur Kotler4. Rabbeinu Tam, Baal Haflaah5. Maaseh Merkavah6. Sreifas HaTalmud, Yonatan Netanyahu7. Rav Gedalia Schorr, Lev Simcha8. Imrei Noam9. Klausenberger Rebbe10. Rebbetzin Elyashiv11. Rav Elchonon Wasserman12. The Tur13. Be'er HaGolah14. Rav Ruderman15. Ohr HaChaim16. Kapischnitzer Rebbe17. Rav Yaakov Yosef Herman, Rav Yaakov Weinberg18. Naroler Rebbe, Rav Shmuel Yehuda Levin19. Rav Herzog, Rav Lazer Yudel Finkel20. Rav Avrohom Chaim Na'eh, Rav Avrohom Yitzchok Bloch21. Meitscheter Iluy, The Shtefanester22. Rav Avrohom Grodzenski23. Ramak24. Rav Yaakov Yosef25. Shaagas Aryeh26. Rav Nachman Bulman27. Rav Shmuel Rozovsky28. Kitzur Shulchan Aruch, Rav Elyashiv29. Rashi, Yismach Moshe---------------------------------------------------Share the Yahrtzeit Yomi link with your contacts!!https://chat.whatsapp.com/JimbwNtBaX31vmRDdnO3yk---------------------------------------------------To dedicate or sponsor, please contact 917-841-5059, or email yahrtzeityomidaily@gmail.com. Sponsorships can be paid by Zelle to the same number. First come, first served.Monthly sponsorships are $540.Weekly sponsorships are $180.Daily sponsorships are as follows:Dedications (l'Zecher Nishmas, Zechus shidduch/refuah/yeshuah, etc.) are $50.Sponsorships (fliers, advertising, promotions, additional links, etc.) are $100.The cost to request and sponsor a specific Tzaddik (unlisted on the Yahrtzeit Yomi schedule) is $180.MAY THE ZECHUS OF ALL THE TZADDIKIM PROTECT US FROM ALL TZAROS, AND MAY HASHEM GRANT US, AND ALL OF KLAL YISROEL, YESHUOS, NECHAMOS AND BESUROS TOVOS!!!

In this emotional and eye-opening interview, we sit down with Shmuie Hartstein, the founder of B'Sefer Chaim, an urgent initiative born out of heartbreak and driven by love. After witnessing the repeated devastation of families who lost a parent without life insurance, Shmuel decided enough was enough. With raw honesty, he shares the story that led him to launch B'Sefer Chaim—an awareness campaign dedicated to ensuring that no Jewish family ever faces financial ruin in the wake of personal loss. This isn't about business. It's about responsibility. About protecting those we love. About building a future where dignity, security, and foresight replace panic, shame, and last-minute fundraisers.

Shmuel, currently the Director of Lech L'cha Discipleship Ministry, served as the Associate Pastor of Adonai Roi (The Lord is My Shepherd) Congregation before joining the team of Lech L'cha. Shmuel was born in Tel Aviv to Jewish parents who immigrated to Israel fromIndia. He attended a Messianic Congregation for much of his childhood,and became serious about his own faith when he was 15 and, at a youth camp, decided to give his life to the Lord.After graduating from high school, he served as a combat medic in the Israeli army on the Golan Heights and in Lebanon. Later, while majoring in Geography at Tel Aviv University, Shmuel was drawn to serving in summer camps with a strong aspiration to reach out to youth - knowing how important it is for this age group to have someone to challenge them in the Lord.  After working for several years in security for El Al (Israeli Airlines) and the Israeli Consulate in New York, Shmuel returned to Israel and began attending Adonai Roi Congregation in the spring of 2003. That same year, he was invited to become the Youth Pastor. Through meetings with other youth leaders from different congregations around Israel, Shmuel met Suzie, who is also a native-born Israeli. In 2006, they married and currently have four children: Together they continued to be involved in leading youth and young believers in the inter-congregational youth group Neged Hazerem (Against the Flow) gathering the youth of multiple congregations together for weekly events. They were also actively involved in Katzir (The Harvest) organizing nationwide youth camps. Shmuel and his family moved to Yad Hashmona, a Messianic village in the Judean hills a few years ago, and they are blessed to have him serve in Lech L'cha. Shmuel's passion is to disciple the next generation of believers in Israel, equipping them to continue in their God-given callings.