Podcasts about Sivan

Avot 3:12-13 | Thursday, June 5th 2025 | 9 Sivan 5785

The Mishna ruled that if there were two groups of witnesses and each group denied knowing testimony, both groups are liable. The Gemara raises a difficulty with this case, arguing that the first group should not be liable since another group of witnesses can still testify. Ravina resolves this difficulty by limiting the Mishna's ruling to a specific case: where the second group of witnesses are related to each other (as their wives are sisters) and both wives are about to die when the first group takes their oath denying knowledge of the testimony. The Mishna lists various cases where witnesses are asked to testify about multiple things. In some cases, they are only liable one sacrifice and in others multiple sacrifices. An oath of testimony only applies in monetary cases. A question is asked: Does this also include cases involving fines (kenas)? Before answering this question, the Gemara limits the question to the rabbis' position in their debate with Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon. Rabbi Elazar rules that if someone admits owing a fine, they are exempt, but if witnesses come forward even after the confession, they are obligated to pay the fine. Therefore, an oath of testimony would clearly apply here, since the witnesses would definitively obligate the defendant. However, the rabbis hold that witnesses can only obligate the defendant if they testify before a confession. Therefore, the question arises whether an oath of testimony would apply here, since it's possible the witnesses are not causing a loss to the claimant—the defendant could simply confess and be exempt. This question is further limited by assuming the rabbis also hold by the position of the rabbis on a different issue: that davar hagorem l'mamon (something that can possibly lead to a monetary obligation) is not considered a monetary obligation. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees and holds that such potential obligations are considered monetary obligations which would obligate the witnesses a sacrifice if they do not testify. After establishing these parameters for the question, the Gemara examines various cases from our Mishna and other sources to attempt an answer. However, neither source provides a conclusive resolution. From where do they derive that an oath of testimony is only for monetary cases? Four different rabbis each bring different proofs.

Tuesday 7 Sivan

Tuesday 7 Sivan

Tuesday 7 Sivan

Avot 3:10-11 | Wednesday, June 4th 2025 | 8 Sivan 5785

The Journey of Faith is Personal - Yom Shabbat Service - 4 Sivan 5785 / May 31, 2025   Parshat Bamidbar - In the wilderness   Torah: Number 1:1-4:20 Haftarah: Hosea 2:1-22

Monday 6 Sivan

Monday 6 Sivan

Monday 6 Sivan

Avot 3:8-9 | Tuesday, June 3rd 2025 | 7 Sivan 5785

Unleash the transformative power of lifting others in this inspiring episode, where Elisheva and Eitan reveal the spiritual magic that happens when we shift our focus from personal challenges to supporting those around us. Learn how simple acts of kindness can create profound connections, unlock hidden potential, and elevate both the giver and receiver. Discover practical techniques to infuse your daily life with purpose, compassion, and meaningful interactions. This episode offers a revolutionary approach to personal growth that shows how helping others is the ultimate path to self-discovery and spiritual fulfillment.Join us for the next episode of Weekly Energy Boost with @ElishevaBalas and @EitanYardeni. Watch LIVE Sundays at 10 am PT / 1 pm ET on The Kabbalah Centre YouTube or catch the latest episode wherever you listen to podcasts.Find out more about our work, dig into our archives, and send us a message at: www.weeklyenergyboost.com.You can also help make Weekly Energy Boost possible by making a tax-deductible contribution at www.weeklyenergyboost.com/donate-today.

An oath of testimony is only relevant when the claimant has asked the witnesses to testify. Shmuel ruled that if the claimant was chasing the witnesses and they swore they did not know any testimony, this would not be considered an oath of testimony. Why did Shmuel need to specify this particular case? From where do we derive that an oath of testimony initiated by others (rather than the witnesses themselves) is only valid if the witnesses agree to it in court? If the witnesses agreed to the oath while in court but had denied knowledge of the testimony multiple times previously outside the court, from where do we derive that they are liable for each denial made outside the court? The Mishna discusses a case where both witnesses testified together. Since two people cannot testify at exactly the same moment, this is understood to mean one witness testified immediately after the other (toch k'dei dibbur - within the time it takes to speak a few words). The Mishna ruled that if the two witnesses did not testify one right after the other, the second witness is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. This principle is a matter of debate when applied to an oath of testimony involving a single witness. What is the underlying basis of this debate? Abaye makes a statement that sounds like a riddle: all agree regarding one witness in a sotah case, all agree regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, there is debate regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, all agree regarding one witness, and all agree regarding a case where the person who should take the oath is unable to do so. What is the meaning of each part of this cryptic statement? Rav Pappa adds additional cases where all agree.

Study Guide Shevuot 31 This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of her mother, Miriam David, Malcah bat Meechael v'Esther, on her 9th yahrzeit. "A devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and educator." This week's learning is sponsored by Naomi Kadish for a refuah shleima for Mordechai Getzel ben Reizel and Chana bat Leah. Several bad practices are discouraged based on the verse in Shmot 23:7, "Distance yourself from false matters." After listing in the Mishna that women, relatives and disqualified witnesses are not obligated for an oath of testimony, there was a general line saying "And all who are not qualified to testify." Rav Pappa understands this line to include a king and Rav Acha to include a gambler. What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath of testimony taken outside the court on one's own? What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath on a deposit initiated by others taken outside the court? Rav Pappa and his students disagreed about whether the root of the debate in both situations was the same. One is obligated to bring a sacrifice for an oath of testimony that was taken intentionally (the witnesses intentionally lied) and one for which they knew they were lying but did not understand the severity of the offense (that they would be obligated to bring a sacrifice. However, they do not bring a sacrifice if the witnesses do not remember that they knew the testimony. What part of the oath of testimony needs to take place in the court? In what situations can the witnesses be liable to bring several sacrifices?  

Sunday 5 Sivan

Sunday 5 Sivan

Sunday 5 Sivan

Study Guide Shevuot 31 This week's learning is sponsored by Joy Benatar in memory of her mother, Miriam David, Malcah bat Meechael v'Esther, on her 9th yahrzeit. "A devoted wife, mother, grandmother, and educator." This week's learning is sponsored by Naomi Kadish for a refuah shleima for Mordechai Getzel ben Reizel and Chana bat Leah. Several bad practices are discouraged based on the verse in Shmot 23:7, "Distance yourself from false matters." After listing in the Mishna that women, relatives and disqualified witnesses are not obligated for an oath of testimony, there was a general line saying "And all who are not qualified to testify." Rav Pappa understands this line to include a king and Rav Acha to include a gambler. What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath of testimony taken outside the court on one's own? What is the root of the debate between Rabbi Meir and the rabbis regarding an oath on a deposit initiated by others taken outside the court? Rav Pappa and his students disagreed about whether the root of the debate in both situations was the same. One is obligated to bring a sacrifice for an oath of testimony that was taken intentionally (the witnesses intentionally lied) and one for which they knew they were lying but did not understand the severity of the offense (that they would be obligated to bring a sacrifice. However, they do not bring a sacrifice if the witnesses do not remember that they knew the testimony. What part of the oath of testimony needs to take place in the court? In what situations can the witnesses be liable to bring several sacrifices?  

An oath of testimony is only relevant when the claimant has asked the witnesses to testify. Shmuel ruled that if the claimant was chasing the witnesses and they swore they did not know any testimony, this would not be considered an oath of testimony. Why did Shmuel need to specify this particular case? From where do we derive that an oath of testimony initiated by others (rather than the witnesses themselves) is only valid if the witnesses agree to it in court? If the witnesses agreed to the oath while in court but had denied knowledge of the testimony multiple times previously outside the court, from where do we derive that they are liable for each denial made outside the court? The Mishna discusses a case where both witnesses testified together. Since two people cannot testify at exactly the same moment, this is understood to mean one witness testified immediately after the other (toch k'dei dibbur - within the time it takes to speak a few words). The Mishna ruled that if the two witnesses did not testify one right after the other, the second witness is exempt from bringing a sacrifice. This principle is a matter of debate when applied to an oath of testimony involving a single witness. What is the underlying basis of this debate? Abaye makes a statement that sounds like a riddle: all agree regarding one witness in a sotah case, all agree regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, there is debate regarding two witnesses in a sotah case, all agree regarding one witness, and all agree regarding a case where the person who should take the oath is unable to do so. What is the meaning of each part of this cryptic statement? Rav Pappa adds additional cases where all agree.

Avot 3:6-7 | Monday, June 2nd 2025 | 6 Sivan 5785

Tanya 6 Sivan Chinuch Katan 3 -A evolução e que dar na elevação espiritual

Tanya 7 Sivan Cap 1 Parte 1 -A energia vital divina presente continuamente em cada criatura

Tanya 7 Sivan Cap 1 Parte 1 -A energia vital divina presente continuamente em cada criatura

Tanya 5 Sivan Chinuch Katan 2 -O amor que Moshe queria inculcar em cada um e que pode ser cultivado

התוכן ככל שמתקרבים יותר לזמן מ"ת יש להוסיף יותר בהכנות לקבלת התורה. עאכו"כ כשנמצאים ביום ערב זמן מ"ת. ובכ"ז ישנם כאלו שעסוקים בכל מיני דברים טובים ונעלים אבל שוכחים להזכיר שצריכים להתכונן בפשטות לקבלת התורה בחה"ש זמן מ"ת! וההכנה היא בפשטות - הקדמת נעשה לנשמע! [שאמרו בנ"י בה' סיון], ולא רק לומר א"ז, אלא לקחת כמה דקות במשך יום זה להתבונן בזה, ב"נעשה" ו"נשמע" ו"הקדמת נעשה לנשמע", בהתבוננות אמיתית אליבא דנפשי', ושדקות אלו "יתפשטו" על כל היום, ועי"ז יהיו מוכנים לקבלת התורה בשמחה ובפנימיות!משיחת אור ליום ה', ה' סיון ה'תשל"ה ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=01-06-2025 Synopsis The closer we get to Shavuos, the more we must increase our preparations for receiving the Torah, and especially on the day before Shavuos. Nevertheless, there are many people involved in all sorts of good and lofty things, but they forget to mention the need simply to prepare for receiving the Torah on the Yom Tov of Shavuos, the Time of the Giving of the Torah. And the way to preparate for it is simple: putting “We will do” before “We will hear” (which the Jewish people said on 5 Sivan). And one shouldn't just say the words; rather one should take a few minutes during the day to reflect on it – to reflect honestly on “We will do,” on “We will listen,” and on putting “We will do before “We will hear” – and in such a way that these few minutes extend to the rest of the day. In this way, one will be ready to receive the Torah with joy and inner meaning.Excerpt from sichah of Thursday night, 5 Sivan 5735 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=01-06-2025 לזכות חיים עזריאל בן חיה ריסה שי' ונגר ליום הולדת שלו יום א' דחג השבועות - לשנת ברכה והצלחה, ואריכות ימים ושנים טובות*לזכות אדל בת שיינא שתחי' ליום ההולדת שלה יום א' דחג השבועותלשנת ברכה והצלחה, ואריכות ימים ושנים טובות

The Nesinas HaTorah on Vav Sivan (Shavuos 5785)

Avot 3:4-5 | Sunday, June 1st 2025 | 5 Sivan 5785

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam on her 21st yahrzeit. A pioneer of women's Jewish learning who cared for every Jew near and far. May her memory be a blessing for all her nephews and nieces serving in the IDF and protecting am Yisrael during these difficult times. What is an oath made in vain? There are three basic categories of this type of oath. Details regarding these categories are analyzed. The Mishna compares the cases where oaths of expression and oath in vain apply - men and women, non-kosher witnesses, in court or out of court, one who takes the oath on one's own or is sworn by another, etc. The laws are the same, other than the sacrifice, which only applies to oaths of expression.  Shmuel states that one who answers amen to someone else's oath is as if they took an oath themselves. This is derived from two different places, one of them being our Mishna. 

What is an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale sin offering? Anyone who cannot testify is excluded from responsibility, including women. The Gemara asks from where in the Torah is it derived that women cannot testify. They bring various braitot that all prove from the same verse, Devarim 19:17, each using a different drasha, that women cannot be witnesses. They learn other laws from that same verse regarding court cases, i.e. who stands and who sits, and requirements of the judges to be fair and balanced. What types of exceptions are made if a talmid chacham is being judged in the court?

The Torah was given in a pattern of threes —a recurring theme that carries deep meaning. The Talmud teaches: the Torah (which itself has three parts—Torah, Nevi'im, Ketuvim) was given to a people divided into three groups (Kohanim, Levi'im, Yisraelim), through the third child of Amram (Moshe), in the third month (Sivan), on the third day (after three days of preparation). Why so many "threes"? The answer reflects the essence of Torah and mitzvot. The Bnei Yissaschar explains that every mitzvah is made up of three components: Action – physically performing the mitzvah. Speech – reciting a beracha, or saying the source verse. Thought – having kavana (intent) and awareness of why we're doing the mitzvah. This three-part formula also aligns with: The body : lower body (action), chest/lungs (speech), head (thought). The soul : nefesh (action), ruach (speech), neshama (thought). Spiritual development : ibur (embryo—action), yenika (nursing—speech), mochin (intellect—thought). Shabuot also commemorates the three stages of Jewish growth: Yetzias Mitzrayim – physical birth (action). Marah – first exposure to Torah laws (speech). Matan Torah – full spiritual maturity (thought and understanding). Even creation itself reflects Torah's structure. On the third day of creation , two Torah-like principles emerged: The grass obeyed a Torah-style kal vachomer and chose to grow "according to its kind," though not explicitly commanded—showing initiative in following Torah logic. The trees , however, failed to follow a potential hekesh (a Torah logic tool), producing fruit without making their trunks edible as commanded. Because of this, grass is honored in our synagogues on Shabuot with greenery—but trees are not included , as per the Vilna Gaon, who also rejected their use due to Christian associations. And finally, it was Moshe Rabbenu who made the famous hekesh —a Torah principle—on his own, delaying the giving of the Torah from the 6th of Sivan to the 7th so that the three-day preparation would be complete. In the Diaspora, where we keep two days of Yom Tov, the second day of Shabuot actually aligns with the true day of Matan Torah ! Summary: Shabuot celebrates a Torah of "threes"—a reflection of how we must serve Hashem with action, speech, and thought; body, soul, and spirit. From creation to redemption to revelation, the pattern of three teaches us how to elevate our lives and deepen our connection to Torah.

This episode discusses the significance of the second day of Sivan, and the true meaning of 'קבלת התורה', sharing a beautiful understanding of the GRA.

Today's daf is sponsored by Laurence and Michelle Berkowitz in memory of Joy Rochwarger Balsam on her 21st yahrzeit. A pioneer of women's Jewish learning who cared for every Jew near and far. May her memory be a blessing for all her nephews and nieces serving in the IDF and protecting am Yisrael during these difficult times. What is an oath made in vain? There are three basic categories of this type of oath. Details regarding these categories are analyzed. The Mishna compares the cases where oaths of expression and oath in vain apply - men and women, non-kosher witnesses, in court or out of court, one who takes the oath on one's own or is sworn by another, etc. The laws are the same, other than the sacrifice, which only applies to oaths of expression.  Shmuel states that one who answers amen to someone else's oath is as if they took an oath themselves. This is derived from two different places, one of them being our Mishna. 

What is an oath of testimony for which one is obligated to bring a sliding-scale sin offering? Anyone who cannot testify is excluded from responsibility, including women. The Gemara asks from where in the Torah is it derived that women cannot testify. They bring various braitot that all prove from the same verse, Devarim 19:17, each using a different drasha, that women cannot be witnesses. They learn other laws from that same verse regarding court cases, i.e. who stands and who sits, and requirements of the judges to be fair and balanced. What types of exceptions are made if a talmid chacham is being judged in the court?

www.dailybreadmoms.com Now coming to busy moms all over the world as a daily podcast! Daily Bread follows the weekly Torah Portion, one part each day, together with a healthy balance from the rest of Scripture — all in one year. More than just a one-year Bible reading plan, Daily Bread is designed as a journal, with a comprehensive Hebrew calendar. To support the podcast - www.patreon.com/dailybreadmoms Check out the Daily Bread Torah Class, LIVE from Israel! Join anytime. larsenarson.com/torah The 5785 / 2025 Journals are available here: arielmedia.shop/

Today's daf is sponsored by Batsheva and Daniel Pava. "Eighty-one years ago, on bet Sivan, the deportation of Hungarian Jewry to Auschwitz began. May our learning be dedicated to the memory of my great-grandmother, Raizel, my grandmother, Batsheva bat Yisroel, the Steinmetz and Vegh families of Apsha, and all the Jews of Marmarosh who were murdered in Auschwitz. May their memories be a blessing." Rava rules that one who takes an oath to not eat a loaf of bread, even if they have already eaten most of it, as long as there is still an olive bulk of bread left, the person can go to a chacham to repeal the oath retroactively. How can this case work with both the language of "I will not eat any of it" and "I will not eat it in its entirety"? A source is brought regarding a nazir to raise a contradiction to Rava. However, it is resolved in three possible ways. Ameimar disagrees with Rava and holds that one has even longer to repeal the oath, as long as the punishment has not yet been implemented. Rava explains that if an oath is made with a condition, if the condition is fulfilled without intention, the oath does not take effect. If the person remembers the condition but forgets the oath when eating the forbidden item, one is liable to bring a sacrifice. If the person remembers both the condition and the oath when eating both, and first eats the one fulfilling the condition, they will receive lashes. If the person first eats the forbidden one and then eats the one fulfilling the condition, it is a debate between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding a warning given in doubt, hatraat safek. Rava continues with another case where a person said that each item is forbidden on condition that they eat the other item. He discusses four possible permutations of what the person did unintentionally and intentionally and explains the law in each case. Rav Meri brings support from a Mishna and braita for Rava's principle in the above cases that if the condition is fulfilled unintentionally, the oath does not go into effect. Avimi asks his brother Eifa about the ruling in different cases of a double/overlapping oath. Each time Eifa answers, Avimi disagrees with Eifa's ruling.

As we begin the 3rd month on the Biblical calendar, the Lord is releasing instructions and provision to His people.  It is important that we align and agree with this timing and expect major changes this month.  

The month of Sivan