Popular Shows by Rabbi Avigdor Miller ר' אביגדור מילר
1088 episodes
#
Name
Release Date
Duration
701
19.1 - Sukkah Daf 21 B (13 lines Up)
19.1 - Sukkah Daf 21 B (13 lines Up)
Feb 21, 2021
10:55
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: If one supports schach with his bedposts, it is kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: If it cannot stand without the posts [it is supported only by bedposts], it is possul. Gemara: Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning? Answer: Rabbi Zeira and Rabbi Abba bar Mammal: One of them explained: Because it’s not a permanent dwelling [according to Rabbi Yehuda, a sukkah must be permanent; 6.2, 18.6]. One of them explained: Because it is supported by something that is mekabel tumah (just as the schach cannot be made from something that’s mekabel tumah [9.3], it cannot be supported by a mekabel tumah). Question: What is the difference between the reasons? Answer: If the schach would be held up by four iron rods. According to the first reason, it would be kosher, since the rods are not portable. According to the second reason, it would be possul, since the rods are mekabel tumah. (This all according to Rabbi Yehuda. According to the Chachomim a sukkah must not be permanent and it may be supported by something that’s mekabel tumah). Abayye: If the schach is over the bed [the walls are a part of the bed, but the schach is on posts over the bed] Rabbi Yehuda agrees that it is kosher. Why? Because it’s permanent and not mekabel tumah [although the walls may be portable and mekabel tumah, the posts are not and we’re only concerned with the schach]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
702
18.6 - Sukkah Daf 21 B (16 lines Dn)
18.6 - Sukkah Daf 21 B (16 lines Dn)
Feb 19, 2021
10:13
Today’s learning sponsored by KACH MAGI’IM THE BOOK THAT WILL TRAIN YOU TO LEARN THE ENTIRE TORAH “Making the Entire Torah Attainable for ALL” AVAILABLE IN ENGLISH AND HEBREW ORDER YOURS ONLINE CLICK HERE OR CALL/TEXT 732-691-2907 https://www.shopeichlers.com/products/within-reach/50012 Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU According to Rabbi Yehuda, it is permissible to sleep under a bed in the sukkah. But if the bed is an ohel, the person sleeping should be considered sleeping only in the ohel and not in the sukkah? Summary Another answer: Rabbi Yehuda follows his opinion (6.2) that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling, and “a casual ohel (the bed) cannot nullify a permanent ohel” (9.2). (The Chachomim disagree, according to them, the sukkah is also an ohel arai - temporary and casual - so sleeping under a bed is problematic). Challenge: Rabbi Shimon is also of the opinion that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling (6.2), still he holds (18.3) that one cannot sleep under a bed in the sukkah? Resolution: Indeed, Both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon hold that a sukkah must be a permanent dwelling. But they argue over whether a casual ohel can nullify a permanent ohel (Rabbi Shimon), or not (Rabbi Yehuda). Mishna (18.3): Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel slept under the bed in the sukkah. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah, so he sleeps under the bed. Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon: From Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze” we learn two things: 1. That a servant is pottur from sukkah.* 2. That one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Question: Why does Rabbi Shimon say it is learned from Rabban Gamliel’s “schmooze”, let him say “from Rabban Gamliel’s words”? Answer: He teaches us “by the way” what was taught by Rav Acha Bar Ada, some say, Rav Acha bar Ada quoting Rav Hamnuna quoting Rav: Even the casual talk of Talmidei Chachomim must be studied. We know this from the possuk: “His leaves shall not wither”. (It means, not only are his fruit valuable, even his leaves don’t wither! So although Rabban Gamliel seemingly made a passing remark, a joke, it became a mishna. * Tosfos: One might think that women are also obligated in sukkah because it’s supposed to be like dwelling in a home. So it’s a chiddush that an eved is pottur. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
703
18.5 - Sukkah Daf 21 A (9 lines Up)
18.5 - Sukkah Daf 21 A (9 lines Up)
Feb 18, 2021
12:34
Today’s learning sponsored by Aaron Stimmel L'ilui Nishmas Avraham Yosef ben Moshe on his 44th Yahrzeit. May his Neshama have an Aliyah. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths. Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen. Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream. Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah. Summary Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, why shouldn’t they sit on doors, it is very high off the ground, more than many full fists? (This is a difficult question to understand because (1) a door is a good ohel according to everyone, even when it’s only one tefach above the ground and (2) why would an ox be a better ohel? According to Rabbi Yehuda (18.3) an ox shouldn’t be an ohel! [Tosfos]). Abayye: Rabbi Yehuda is saying that the doors were not necessary, not that there’s any problem with sitting on a door. Rava: According to Rabbi Yehuda doors should be avoided, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei. We learned a beraisa like Rava: “Rabbi Yehuda: Doors should not be used at all, because the child may become cocky sitting atop the door and stick his head out and become tamei. Rather they would bring wide-bellied Egyptian oxen and the children would sit on these holding stone cups. When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back on the backs of the oxen. Challenge: According to Rabbi Yehuda, there are many ‘full fists’ under a bed, and it should be considered an ohel, yet we learned in the mishna (18.3) “Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim”? (But if it’s an ohel it shouldn’t be considered part of the sukkah!) Resolution: A bed is made for its top (it’s not made to cover anything, see also 14.4). Challenge: Oxen aren’t either made to cover anything! When Ravin came from Eretz Yisroel, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Oxen protect the shepherds from the heat or the rain. Challenge: In that case (that the casual use of the shepherd makes the ox an ohel), a bed also protects shoes and sandals! Rava: The oxe’s back was created for the purpose of protecting the oxe’s inner organs so it can be considered “built for an ohel” as the possuk states “You clothed me with sin and flesh, and you made a sukkah around me of bone and sinew”. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
704
18.4 - Sukkah Daf 21 A (4 lines Dn)
18.4 - Sukkah Daf 21 A (4 lines Dn)
Feb 17, 2021
9:32
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Chachomim: An unintentional Ohel is still an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda: an unintentional ohel is not an ohel. Rabbi Yehuda learns this from the mishkan which is called an ohel and it was intentional*. Summary The Chachomim explain: Since the word ohel is repeated in the Torah, it comes to include any type of ohel. Challenge: Does Rabbi Yehuda hold that an unintentional ohel cannot be considered an ohel? We learned: There were courtyards in Yerushalayim built on rock atop caves because of graves in the depths (the parah adumah had to be done in complete purity, these courtyards were built above a hollow so that even if there was a grave somewhere in the depths below, the hollow would not allow the tumah to rise). Pregnant women would be brought there to give birth (these children would be completely protected from tumas meis) and these children would be brought up there for the service of the Parah Adumah. They would bring oxen with doors on their backs and the children would sit on these (as if on a sedan. This was done so that the doors would make an ohel and interven between the children and any potential tumah) holding stone cups (which aren’t mekabel tumah). When they arrived at the Shiloach the children would enter the water and fill their cups. They would then ride back sitting on the doors of the oxen. Rabbi Yosi: They wouldn’t enter the water, rather they would lower their cups and draw water with ropes, in case there’s a grave under the stream. Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: Doors were not necessary, the children would sit on oxen, and the oxen would intervene between the child and the tumah. But an ox is an ohel that was not intentionally made by man, which should not be an ohel according to Rabbi Yehuda?! When Rav Dimi came, he quoted Rabbi Elazar: Rabbi Yehuda agrees that if an ohel is a full fist (more than a tefach), even an unintentional ohel is significant (Thus an ox can be considered an ohel). We learned a beraisa also thus: Rabbi Yehuda agrees with regard to an arcade or an erosion in rocks [since these are big hollows, they’re considered ohalim]. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-H0O2CJl0L-0BVA85VgRBSliDZ8C2AAd/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos : Then an ohel should have to be made of pishtan too, as we learn in Shabbos? Tosfos answers that we learn other materials from Metzora. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
705
18.3 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (Misnah)
18.3 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (Misnah)
Feb 16, 2021
10:24
18.3 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (Misnah) Summary Mishna: One who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah. Rabbi Yehuda: It was our custom to sleep under the bed in the sukkah in the presence of the Chachomim and they didn’t tell us anything (in those days they wouldn’t hold back criticism if someone was doing something wrong). Rabbi Shimon: It happened that Tavi, the eved of Rabban Gamliel (this eved was a pious and scholarly man. It was common for the family of the nesi’im to have scholarly servants. We find that the maidservant of Rebbi had certain knowledge that the Chachomim didn’t have) slept under the bed in the sukkah*. Rabban Gamliel pointed out to the Chachomim that Tavi is a talmid chochom and is aware that he is pottur from the sukkah (since an eved is like a woman who is absolved of mitzvos asei she’hazman grama), so he sleeps under the bed which is not considered to be in the sukkah. Thus we learn that one who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his mitzvah. Gemara: Challenge: But the bed is not 10 tefachim high?! Resolution: Shmuel explained that our mishna is referring to a bed that is 10 tefachim high**. We learned there [in Ohalos]: If [an unintentional ohel was formed; it means that] something was hollowed out by water, by moles, or if it was corroded by salt, [or if an ohel was unintentionally formed by] a pile of stones or wood: constitutes an ohel if it is over a meis. Rabbi Yehuda: It cannot be an ohel unless it was made intentionally as an ohel. Question: What is Rabbi Yehuda’s source? Answer: He learns it from the word ohel that is used regarding the mishkan. Just as the mishkan was built by intentional humans, so too an ohel hameis needts to be made intentionally. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1svN7dbl20Q5SV16k933VMae0qUYQ3ZCJ/view?usp=drivesdk * Tosfos: The Yerushalmi says that he would put on tefillin too. The Yerushalmi asks why they allowed him to put on tefillin (which may mislead people into thinking that he is a full-fledged Jew) but not to sleep in the sukkah. The answer is that he was allowed into the sukkah proper but he wanted to make more room for the Chachomim. The question is though, why he didn’t leave the sukkah entirely to make even more room. The answer is because he wanted to hear the conversations of the Chachomim. ** Tosfos has a discussion about whether this gemara is based on a unanimous opinion or if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion. If it’s unanimous, then we understand the question and the answer. But if it’s only Shmuel’s opinion then we must explain that the question was also asked by Shmuel, not only that he answered the question. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
706
18.2 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (5 lines Dn)
18.2 - Sukkah Daf 20 B (5 lines Dn)
Feb 15, 2021
12:55
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU In 17.6, a mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced. The Chachomim ascribed a severe level of tumah to them while Rabbi Dosa was more lenient (while still considering them tamei, and thus invalid for use as schach). Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri said that Chotzlos are Marzuvli - sacks filled with leaves. Reish Lakish said that they’re mats. Summary Challenge: We learned: “Rabbi Dosa: Chotzlos become tamei with meis-level tumah.” And yet we learned (17.6): “Rabbi Dosa concurred [to the opinion of Rabbi Yosi, that mats can be used for schach].” Resolution: It depends whether the mat has walls [like a large basket] or not. (A metal keili is always mekabel tumah, but other materials require a ‘beis kibul - indentation that can hold things’ in order to be considered a keili that is mekabel tumah. If the mat doesn’t have walls, then it’s flat like ‘peshutei klei eitz - flat slabs of wood’ and not mekabel tumah, but a mat with walls has a beis kibul and is considered a keili mekabel tumah [this discussion is only relevant to tumas meis, but something flat can become tamei with tumas midras, it can then become tamei meis as well]). Challenge: Beraisa: Chotzlos of shaam, gmi, goat-hair, and sfira have the potential of becoming tamei with tumas meis according to Rabbi Dosa. According to the Chachomim they can become tamei with midras as well. According to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for transporting food, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for larger objects. But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains (Tosfos explain why a curtain would be mekabel tumah), or as sieves, but what are the other materials fit for? Resolution: It is fit for dragging kegs*, since it has some walls around it. Ikka D’omri [a different version of the foregoing]: According to the opinion that Chotzlos are mats, so sacks of shaam and gmi can be used for dragging kegs, while sacks of goat hair and sfira can be used for curtains or as sieves. But according to the opinion that Chotzlos are Marzuvli, so mats of goat hair and sfira can be used for transporting large objects, but what are the other materials fit for? Resolution: For transporting food. Beraisa: Rabbi Chananiah: When I went down to Bavel I encountered a zakein who said that a mat can be used as schach when I returned to [Eretz Yisroel, where I met] my uncle Rabbi Yehoshua, he concurred. Rav Chisda: Provided that the mat doesn’t have walls. Ulla: The mats of Mechuza** would be valid for schach if they didn’t have a wall surrounding them. We learned in a beraisa also thus: A mat can be used as schach provided that the mat doesn’t have walls. Click here to listen with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ylp2MkzBbF5PJDV58CUuaC M5KI7maWR/view?usp=sharing * Rashi explains that it can be used for covering kegs. But Tosfos argues that in that case it would not be considered a beis kibul. ** Tosfos explains that they were placed under trees to catch the falling fruits, but in that case it should be disqualified as schach just as “a baker’s board” is not considered peshutei klei eitz! Tosfos answers that since these mats were only made to catch the fruit if they had walls around it, the lack of walls would make them peshutei klei eitz. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
707
Bein Hazmanim 8-Pesachim Daf 116_A (16 lines Dn)
Bein Hazmanim 8-Pesachim Daf 116_A (16 lines Dn)
Mar 31, 2021
8:54
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
708
24.5 - Sukkah Daf 29 B (6 lines Up)
24.5 - Sukkah Daf 29 B (6 lines Up)
Apr 15, 2021
6:02
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Gemara: The mishna does not differentiate between the first day and the rest of yom tov. Question: A dried out lulav which is possul because it is not hadar, is indeed possul for the entire yom tov. But if a lulav is only possul based on the possuk “v’lakachta lachem bayom harishon - take for yourselves on the first day” then it would only be possul on the first day. A stolen lulav is seemingly disqualified based on this verse, so why does the mishna lump it together with a dried out lulav? Response: Rabbi Yochanan quoting Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: A stolen lulav is possul because it it a “mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah - a mitzvah made possible by an aveirah”,* which is problematic based on the possuk “You bring stolen animals as well as lame animals” - just as a lame animal cannot be brought as a korban, a stolen animal cannot be brought as a korban either - even after yiush. However, it would seem that only before yiush a stolen korban would be problematic - as the possuk says “adam ki yakriv mikem”, but after yiush the thief has acquired ownership of the animal, so why is it rejected as a korban? It must be because it’s a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1txAydtWGq14KQUlKDLRKuC9ranmLKWtq/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: Although this principle is learned from korban, it is applied to all mitzvos d’orayso as is evident from the gemara that one cannot make a bracha on the mitzvah of challah made from stolen wheat. Rashash: Why is it necessary to bring proof from another gemara, we have proof from our gemara too! Besides, from that gemara we only learn that a bracha cannot be made, but not that the mitzvah is disqualified? Tosfos: Mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah only applies to a mitzvah that is made possible by an aveirah - such as a stolen lulav which the thief wouldn’t have, had he not stolen it. But this principle cannot be applied to an avodah zarah lulav since the sin of avodah zarah has no bearing on the mitzvah of lulav. However there’s a problem with this chiddush because in Pesachim Matzah from tevel is disqualified from a possuk when it can actually be classified as a mitzvah haba’ah b’aveirah. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
709
24.4 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (2 lines Up)
24.4 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (2 lines Up)
Apr 15, 2021
7:02
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary The Beraisa continues: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property to the government: 1. Because they keep paid promissory notes (which they then collect a second time, Hakadosh Baruch Hu takes away their property because of their dishonest practices). 2. Because they lend money at interest (they have money and the opportunity to practice chesed, but instead lend out their money in a prohibited fashion). 3. Because they don’t protest evil (rich men have clout and the ability to influence people, a Jewish millionaire should know that Hashem gave him money only to influence the Jewish people and draw them close to Hakadosh Baruch Hu, if he fails to do so he will become a pauper). 4. Because they pledge charity in public but do not pay up. Rav: Four things cause well-to-do people to lose their property: 1. Because they withhold wages from their laborers. 2. Because they rob their laborers by not paying at all. 3. Because they get out of paying taxes, placing the burden on less connected individuals. 4. Because they’re arrogant; arrogance is worse than all these things combined. [To end off the perek on a good note]: But regarding the humble it states: “The humble ones will inherit the earth and enjoy great peace”. END OF PEREK 🍾 Mazel Tov! 🥂 Mishna: A stolen or dried out lulav [or any of the four species] is possul. If it comes from an Asherah tree or from an ir hanidachas (which must be burned), it is possul (because it is considered ashes and does not have the proper shiur). If the tip is broken off,* or the leaves are broken (according to Rashi, they’re not connected to the ‘shedrah’, others explain that the leaves are drooping downward) it is possul. If the leaves are spread away from the center, it’s kosher. Rabbi Yehuda: It must be tied together and not allowed to spread out. Palms from Har Habarzel [which have short leaves], are kosher. A lulav whose length is 3 tefachim [and another tefach] so that it can be shaken, is kosher. Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l22EVaQoWIcL8XMXCqggWCZeYVuT-FNc/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: 1. This refers to the tips of most of the top leaves. 2. It refers to the Tiyomes [the two center “twin leaves”]. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
710
24.3 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (6 lines after spreads)
24.3 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (6 lines after spreads)
Apr 13, 2021
9:22
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad sign for the gentiles, a lunar eclipse is a bad sign for (enemies of the) Jews, because while the gentiles count by the sun, the Jews count by the moon. If there is a partial eclipse on the eastern side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the east, if it’s on the western side, it’s a bad sign for those who live in the west. If it’s in the middle, it’s a bad sign for the whole world. If the face of the sun is changed and looks like blood, it means war. If the sun seems grey, dark and wooly, it’s a sign of famine. If the sun looks like both, it’s a sign of both. If the eclipse takes place when the sun is about to set, it means the misfortune will come after some time. If it takes place immediately after the sun rises, it means the misfortune will be immediate. Some say, the other way around. Whenever there is retribution to the nations, there is also retribution on their gods, as it states “I will punish all the gods of egypt” (most places of idolatry have disappeared). But when Yisroel do the will of Hakadosh Baruch Hu they need not fear anything as it states in a verse. Beraisa: The sun is smitten because of four things (when there’s an eclipse, it is these four areas especially that people should investigate): 1. If a great man is not mourned properly (it means that people don’t appreciate the gedolim enough). 2. If a betrothed girl cried out and was ignored (if people don’t react with a great wave of indignation against wickedness). 3. Homosexuality (the Jewish nation must enlist an army and go out to war against gay rights). 4. When two brothers are killed together (It’s referring to a specific incident, it means that our reactions must reflect the severity of the crime). There are four things that cause the luminaries to be eclipsed: 1. If people write mean notes defaming their fellow Jews to the government (for instance if they decry the lack of human rights in Israel while ignoring what the Russian government does). 2. People who testify falsely. 3. People who raise sheep and goats in Eretz Yisroel (they graze on the lands and ruin the fields, these people are considered robbers). 4. Those who chop down fruit trees (fruit trees are an important blessing from Hakadosh Baruch Hu). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
711
24.2 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (3 lines befor spreads)
24.2 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (3 lines befor spreads)
Apr 12, 2021
9:04
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary We learned (23.6) “It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face”. Question: It’s like who pours a kettle on whose face? Response: It is clarified in the beraisa: “It’s like the master pours a kettle on his servant’s face and says to the servant, I don’t want to be served by the likes of you” (so when it rains on sukkos, especially on the first night, we’re supposed to think that perhaps we’re being negligent in our national duties. Perhaps we should be doing more to bring our brethren back to Torah. The mishna spares its words and this lesson is in the mishna so it must be very important). Now begins a discussion about different signs and omens in nature. Beraisa: A solar eclipse is a bad omen for the world. It’s like a king who removes the lamp and leaves his servants in darkness (although it is possible to calculate these matters, it can still serve as an impetus for reflection and improvement. Yom Kippur can also be calculated). Beraisa: Rabbi Meir: When the luminaries (the moon and stars; sometimes binary stars eclipse each other for short periods, or sometimes there’s an occlusion caused by the moon) are smitten it is a bad omen for enemies of Jews (it means Jews) because they’re accustomed to suffering. It’s like when the teacher comes into class with a big whip, it’s the kid who usually gets hit who worries most (because Hashem loves us he punishes for each infraction, no one tries to clean the city dump, only the nicest neighborhoods get cleaned). This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
712
24.1 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (3 lines Dn)
24.1 - Sukkah Daf 29 A (3 lines Dn)
Apr 12, 2021
8:19
Today’s learning sponsored by S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Rava: Drinking vessels may remain in the sukkah (they don’t get soiled and are in constant use) but eating vessels (Rashi: used plates. Tosfos: pots from which individual portions are served. Both explanations are true l’halacha) should remain outside of the sukkah. A clay pitcher and water bucket should remain outside of the sukkah. A lamp should be outside of the sukkah if it’s a low sukkah (which may burn down and he’ll be left without a sukkah) but in the sukkah if it has a high roof. We learned (23.6) “one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain” Beraisa: This refers to a porridge of chopped barley (a food that spoils quickly, Rashi). Abayye was sitting in Rav Yosef’s sukkah. The wind blew down some splinters from the schach. Rav Yosef said, remove my things from the sukkah. Abayye asked him didn’t we learn that one may only leave once a porridge would spoil? Rav Yosef explained that since he was a finicky fellow, a minor discomfort was equal to the discomfort experienced by another whose porridge was spoiled. Beraisa: If someone left the sukkah in middle of the meal due to rain, he may remain in the house until the end of the meal. If he left the sukkah to sleep in the house due to rain, he need not return to the sukkah until “yeor”. Question: Does yeor mean until he awakens, even after dawn, or does it mean when the sun comes up? Response: The beraisa continues: “until yeor and the dawn rises”. If yeor means sunrise the beraisa is needlessly repeating itself, we thus conclude that it means until he awakens and the sun rises. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
713
23.6 - Sukkah Daf 28 B (20 lines Dn)
23.6 - Sukkah Daf 28 B (20 lines Dn)
Apr 9, 2021
8:07
Today’s learning sponsored לרגל יום היארצייט של מורינו הגאון הצדיק חסיד שבכהונה רבינו אביגדור ב"ר ישראל הכהן זצ"ל, כ"ז ניסן תשס"א לפ"ק זכותו יגן עלינו Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary We learned (23.4) “A child who doesn’t need his mother is obligated in the laws of sukkah”. Question: Which child is considered to no longer need his mother? Rabbi Yannai’s Beis Midrash: If he no longer needs his mother to wipe him after taking care of his needs. Rabbi Shimon: If he doesn’t call out “Mother, mother!” upon awakening. Challenge: Even bigger children do that sometimes? Resolution: It means he doesn’t call out persistently. We learned (23.4) “Children are not obligated in sukkah. It happened that the daughter in law of Shammai Hazaken gave birth, so he broke open the ceiling above the crib and put schach over the baby. Challenge: Would the mishna bring an incident to contradict? (When the mishna brings an incident, it’s to illustrate a law, not to contradict it). Resolution: A few words should be added to the Mishna, it should read: “Children are not obligated in sukkah. Shammai (not Beis Shammai) disagrees. It happened etc.” Mishna: On all seven days of Yom Tov, the Sukkah should be his fixed place while his home should be used casually. If rain comes down, one may leave the sukkah from when a porridge is spoiled by the rain. [Here the mishna instructs us how to leave the sukkah when necessary]. It’s like the case of a servant who wishes to pour a drink for his master and he pours the kettle of water on his face. Gemara: Beraisa: How does one make the sukkah his fixed place? If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks and spends time in the sukkah. Question: What is the source? Beraisa: Teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) – one must treat the sukkah like his home. If he has handsome things and bedspreads, he should take it up to the sukkah (which used to be made on the rooftops). He eats, drinks, spends time and learns (sharp learning, like the word shanein) in the sukkah. Challenge: But we learned from Rava: Chumash and Halacha can be learned in the sukkah, but in depth learning should be inside the home. Resolution: They stayed in the sukkah to review (they didn’t have seforim and they would review a lot), but for meditation or analysis they would go into the house. This is like Rava and Rami bar Chama, before they entered Rav Chisda’s shiur, they first ran through the gemara together and then they analyzed it. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
714
23.5 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (4 lines Up)
23.5 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (4 lines Up)
Apr 8, 2021
8:59
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= A certain word was taught by one beraisa to exclude women from the laws of sukkah, while a different beraisa uses the same word to include women in the laws of Yom Kippur. The gemara explains that actually the law is a halacha l’Moshe misinai and the possuk is only an asmachta. Summary Question: Which law is derived from the possuk and which from the existing halacha? Additional Challenge: Neither a possuk nor a halacha is necessary. We know that woman are excluded from sukkah because it is a time-bound mitzvah which women are exempt from. And we know that women are included in the laws of Yom Kippur from teaching of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav: Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav, and it was also taught in Rabbi Yishmael’s Beis Medrash: When the possuk states “A man or woman” they’re equally included in all punishments of the Torah, which means that all restrictions of the Torah [including Yom Kippur] apply equally. Abayye: Sukkah is the one derived from Halacha L’Moshe MiSinai. Since there is a principle of teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2) we would think that women are included in sukkah just as they live with their husbands in their homes. Rava: [Another reason the halacha is necessary regarding sukkah]. One might think that the teaching of “The Fifteenth” (22.3) would include women in all laws of sukkah. Question: Since the possuk of “All the citizens” is not necessary for excluding women from the laws of sukkah, what does it teach? Response: Geirim are included in the laws of sukkah. Citizens would exclude Geirim, “All the citizens” includes Geirim as well. Question: Why is a possuk necessary to teach us that women are included in the laws of Yom Kippur, since it can be derived from the teaching of Rabbi Yehuda quoting Rav? Response: The possuk is still necessary to teach that the law of “Tosfos Yom Hakippurim” applies to women as well even though it is not included in the punishment. Challenge: The beraisa (23.4) teaches that children are obligated in sukkah, but the mishna (23.4) teaches that they’re exempt? Resolution: The beraisa is referring to children who are chinuch -aged [and thus have a rabbinic obligation to sit in the sukkah]. Challenge: But the beraisa derives this from a possuk, how can it be referring to a rabbinic obligation? Resolution: Indeed. The possuk is merely an asmachta. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
715
23.4 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (Misnah)
23.4 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (Misnah)
Apr 8, 2021
8:28
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Mishna: If one’s head and most of his body is in the sukkah, while his table is in his house; Beis Shammai disqualify it while Beis Hillel permit it. Beis Hillel to Beis Shammai: When the sages of Beis Hillel and Beis Shammai went to visit Rabbi Yochanan ben Hachoranis they saw him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukkah, and his table in his house, and they didn’t tell him anything (in those days they wouldn’t hold back criticism if someone was doing something wrong). Beis Shammai replied: The sages did speak up, they said “If this is how you sit in a sukkah, you never fulfilled the mitzvah. Women, slaves and children are not obligated in sukkah. A child who doesn’t need his mother (this will be explained in the gemara) is obligated. [Beis Shammai is more stringent], it happened that the daughter in law of Shammai Hazaken gave birth, so he broke open the ceiling above the crib (Shammai was not the type to be deterred by something like a roof) and put schach over the baby. Gemara: Question: What is the source [that women are not obligated]? Response: Beraisa: It states “All the citizens [must sit in a sukkah]”. The word “the” excludes women, the word “all” includes children. Challenge: So “All citizens” [without “the”] would include women? But in the matter of Yom Kippur we learn the opposite that “The citizens” includes women in the laws of Yom Kippur, whereas “citizens” alone would exclude them? Rabbah: The halacha (singular: see Tosfos) was known and not derived from the possuk, the Chachomim merely used the possuk as an asmachta. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
716
23.3 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (9 lines after spreads)
23.3 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (9 lines after spreads)
Apr 6, 2021
11:16
Today’s learning sponsored by Issak Rodriguez Baruch Hashem! In gratitude to Hakodosh Boruch Hu for the making the lectures of HaRav Yisroel Brog, Shlit"a available online. May this gemarah learning be for the merit of the Rav, I've learned so much from him. Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Summary Beraisa: Hillel Hazakein had 80 talmidim. (There’s a remarkable lesson here, there were 80 talmidim but only 2 are named. Throughout the ages there were very many great men who are not known to us at all. There were 1.2 million nevi’im in our history and yet we only know the names of about 10. The gemara is not a history of the tzadikim, that’s written in the records of Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Jews don’t labor in order to be remembered for posterity, all our labor is for Hakadosh Baruch Hu alone. Thirty were worthy of nevuah like Moshe Rabeinu. Thirty were worthy of having the sun stop for them like Yehoshua. Twenty were in between. The greatest of them was Yonason ben Uziel, the smallest was Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai (some say it means the smallest in age). They said about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai: He did not neglect (he studied it by heart) Mikra, Mishna or Gemara (this means the explanation of mishnayos, it was an integral part of Torah Shebaal Peh only it was not memorized word for word like the mishnah. The wording was set in the days of Abayye and Rava and sealed by Rav Ashi). Halacha l’Moshe Misinai, Aggadic moral teachings, Dikdukim - logical inferences that can be derived from the Torah, Dikdukei Sofrim (this refers either to lessons gleaned from the shapes of the letters, or to the study of takanos chachomim), Kal Vachomer, Gezeiros Shavos, the calculations of the seasons, Gimatriyaos, stories that were told about Malochim, Sheidim, or Trees. Meshalim (these were said by the chachomim to teach various ethical lessons but they were set in story form to capture interest) of poor laborers [laundrymen], of foxen (such as the story of the fox and the lion, or the fox and the fish). Great things and Small things: Great things refer to Maaseh Merkavah. Small things refer to the discussions of Abayye and Rava (although they didn’t live yet, all their discussions had already been discussed and debated). This is what the possuk means: “I have plenty to give to those who love me, and I will fill their treasure houses”. (When a man learns more Torah, it’s Hakadosh Baruch Hu giving him the most important wealth. For more on this subject, see Toras Avigdor on Bar Mitzvah). If this was the youngest disciple, then those of a previous generations were surely even greater: They said about Yonason ben Uziel (they began calling people with the title “Rabbi” only at the time of the churban, Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai lived until after the churban. The Nasi was already called Rabban some time before): When he would sit and study Torah it was with such a fire that any bird flying overhead was burned. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
717
23.2 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (2 lines Dn)
23.2 - Sukkah Daf 28 A (2 lines Dn)
Apr 5, 2021
8:57
Today’s learning sponsored by S.N.S., as a zechus for all those who need Shidduchim Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rabbi Eliezer never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbi. Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer once spent Shabbos in the Upper Galil. They asked him 30 questions in the laws of sukkah. Regarding 12 questions he said that he had heard and gave responses, but regarding the other 18 he merely said that he hadn’t heard. Rabbi Yosi B’Rebbi Yehuda: It was the other way around. He responded to 18, and said that he hadn’t heard regarding the other 12. They said to him: You don’t say anything on your own? Only what you heard? Rabbi Eliezer: You’re forcing me to make a statement that I didn’t hear from my rebbe (he explained to them some of his ways so that they would be able to emulate him. He was so great that he was not concerned with kavod): No one ever came to the Beis Medrash before me (that was a tough thing then - not like today!). I never slept in the Beis Medrash (which is permitted for Torah students) nor did I even nap there. I was always the last to leave from the Beis Medrash. I never spoke secular conversation. And I never said anything that I didn’t hear from my rebbe. (He had other ways too, but this was a bit that he revealed. When Rabbi Eliezer died, he wept, saying that his talmidim only heard from him a drop from the great ocean of knowledge that he had). Now we go to the Rebbi of Rabbi Eliezer: They said about Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai: He never spoke unnecessary speech. He never walked 4 amos without thinking in Torah and wearing Tefillin. No one ever came to the Beis Medrash before him. He never slept in the Beis Medrash nor even napped there. He didn’t think in DIvrei Torah in unclean places (which was a great accomplishment for someone like him. There is a special dispensation in halacha for someone who cannot stop himself from thinking divrei torah to think it in the bathroom as well, but Rabban Yochanan controlled his thoughts anyway). He was always the last to leave from the Beis Medrash. He could never be found “doing nothing”, he was always sitting and learning. He would always run to the door to grab the mitzvah of opening it for his talmidim. And he never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbe (he was a talmid of Hillel and Shammai). He never said “It’s time to stop learning and go home” (rather, he would stop teaching and they would understand on their own that it’s time to go home) except for Erev Pesach (When they had to go home to bring the korban Pesach) and Erev Yom Kippur (when there’s a mitzvah to eat a meal). And so too, did his disciple Rabbi Eliezer comport himself. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
718
18.1 - Sukkah Daf 20 A (11 lines Up)
18.1 - Sukkah Daf 20 A (11 lines Up)
Feb 14, 2021
8:32
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU There was a discussion about using “Machtzulos - mats” for schach. A mishna discussing the tumah of “Chotzlos” was referenced. Summary Question: What are Chotzlos? Rav Avdimi bar Hamduri: Marzuvli. Question: What are Marzuvli? Rabbi Abba: Mazbeli. (A sack of coarse material that’s packed with leaves that can sometimes be used as a cushion. Rabbi Dosa says it can become tamei meis because it’s a keili, but not midras, because it is not made to be used as a cushion. But the Chachomim hold that tumas midras also applies). Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Chotzlos are mats. Reish Lakish thereby follows his principle as we find: Reish Lakish: May my suffering provide atonement to Rabbi Chiya and his sons [he so admired them that he wished to take upon himself any of their potential suffering] because in the beginning [of the second temple period] when the Torah was being forgotten (there were many great sages at the time, but the Torah Center of the nation was in Bavel, and in Eretz Yisroel there was a good deal of ignorance) Ezra [with the Anshei Knesses Hagedolah] went up and established it again. It was again forgotten (when the Chachomim fled Eretz Yisroel due to the persecution of the Tzeduki Chashmonai Kings) and Hillel Habavli went up and established it again. Hillel renewed the Torah that was on the verge of being forgotten in Eretz Yisroel. It was once again forgotten (after the war of Beitar when the Romans ravaged all of Eretz Yisroel leaving no places for talmidim to gather) so Rabbi Chiya and his sons [Yehuda and Chizkiyah] went up and established it again (they established Torah schools across the country and raised up a generation of Torah students). Rabbi Chiya and his sons taught: Rabbi Dosa and the Chachomim agree regarding mats of Usha; they are potentially tamei midras (they’re made of a soft material and are used for sitting or lying on). The mats of Teveriah cannot become tamei with midras. Their debate is only regarding other small mats. Rabbi Dosa is of the opinion that since they’re not made for sitting on, they’re like the mats of Teveriah. The Chachomim hold that since it happens sometimes that people use them as a seat, they're like the mats of Usha. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
719
Bein Hazmanim 7-Pesachim Daf 115_B (4 lines Up)
Bein Hazmanim 7-Pesachim Daf 115_B (4 lines Up)
Mar 31, 2021
9:36
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
720
Bein Hazmanim 6-Pesachim Daf 115_B (Middle)
Bein Hazmanim 6-Pesachim Daf 115_B (Middle)
Mar 26, 2021
12:12
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
721
Rav Avigdor Miller on MATZAH. Thoughts For The Seder Night and All Year Long
Rav Avigdor Miller on MATZAH. Thoughts For The Seder Night and All Year Long
Mar 24, 2021
10:05
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
722
02-Pesachim Daf 114_B (Top line)
02-Pesachim Daf 114_B (Top line)
Mar 24, 2021
9:42
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
723
02-Pesachim Daf 114_B (Top line)
02-Pesachim Daf 114_B (Top line)
Mar 22, 2021
9:42
This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
724
22.6 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (13 lines Up)
22.6 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (13 lines Up)
Mar 19, 2021
8:04
22.6 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (13 lines Up) Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer once went to spend shabbos in the upper Galil in the sukkah of Yochanan b’rebbe Ilai in Caesari, and some say, Caesarion. The sun began to shine into the sukkah and it became uncomfortable. Yochanan asked whether he would be permitted to spread a sheet out over the sukkah. Rabbi Eliezer answered the question by talking about something else: “Every shevet had a shofet of their own” [in the days of the Shoftim; after Yehoshua and Shmuel, every shevet had a chance to have their own shofet]. When half of the sukkah became filled with sunshine, Yochanan asked again. Rabbi Eliezer: Every shevet was zoche to nevi’im. Yehuda and Binyomin coronated kings by the word of the navi (I’m not sure if it means that they didn’t have nevi’im or it was in addition). [They used to recline on couches when they ate and] the sun was already reaching Rabbi Eliezer’s feet. So Yochanan didn’t ask any sheilos; he spread out a sheet. So Rabbi Eliezer lowered his talis [which was folded while he was reclining], and walked out of the sukkah. Rabbi Eliezer did not avoid the question because he didn’t want to answer but because he never said anything that he didn’t hear from his rebbi. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer says (22.5) that one is not permitted to sit in his fellow’s sukkah? Resolution: This story was not on sukkos. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer holds (22.5) that you shouldn’t leave home for other yomim tovim either? Resolution: It was Shabbos and the problem with spreading a sheet was building a binyan arai, a temporary structure. Challenge: Why couldn’t he answer him based on the following Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: One may only close up a window if the board is tied and hanging, but not if it’s on the floor, then it’s like making a window (shutters are permitted because it’s on hinges, here we’re talking about a separate board). Chachomim: The board can be used since it’s made for that purpose. So why couldn’t Rabbi Eliezer quote this halacha as a source for our case of spreading a sheet [which is the same type of “building” as putting a board in the window]. Resolution: The cases are not similar enough. The board may be left there forever, but not the sheet. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
725
22.5 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (11 lines 11)
22.5 - Sukkah Daf 27 B (11 lines 11)
Mar 18, 2021
8:17
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: Just as one cannot use his fellow’s lulav, based on the possuk “Take yourselves…” which means “take your own”, so too one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah by sitting in his fellow’s sukkah, as the possuk states “Make yourselves sukkos”, it means “your own sukkah”. Chachomim: Although one cannot use his fellow’s lulav on the first day of Yom Tov, he may sit in another’s sukkah as it states “All citizens of Yisroel should dwell in a sukkah” which indicates that one sukkah is enough for all Yisroel (although it is impossible for all of klal Yisroel to have a perutah’s share in just one sukkah*). Question: How do the Chachomim explain the possuk “Make ‘yourselves’ sukkos”? Resolution: It means (7.3) that one cannot fulfill the mitzvah of sukkah by sitting in a stolen sukkah (if you know that he doesn’t want you using his sukkah. The rule is that in general a person doesn’t mind if you use his property for a mitzvah). Question: How does Rabbi Eliezer explain the possuk “All citizens of Yisroel should dwell in a sukkah”? Response: Although one cannot be in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov, a ger or a bar mitzvah who could only be in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov are included by this verse. The Chachomim do not need a possuk to teach this lesson, since they hold that one can sit in a sukkah for part of Yom Tov. Beraisa: Rabbi Ilai went to see his rebbi, Rabbi Eliezer, in Lod. Rabbi Eliezer said to him “You don’t observe Yom Tov?” because Rabbi Eliezer would say “I praise the lazy ones who don’t leave their homes on Yom Tov, as it states ‘You should rejoice with your family’.” (This applies even to Pesach). Challenge: Rabbi Yitzchok: The obligation to visit one’s Rebbi on Yom Tov stems from the possuk said by the Shunamis’ husband “Why are you going today? It is neither Rosh Chodesh (which was a yom tov in those day) nor Shabbos”. So we see that visiting a rebbi on Yom Tov is a mitzvah? Resolution: Rabbi Yitzchok is referring to a case where he can go and return on the same day while Rabbi Eliezer objects to one leaving home and lodging elsewhere. To listen to the shiur with tosfos click here. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PAzLHVeCTokrJ2qnvvSet9j4cWIjzJ3X/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos: This pshat of Rashi is unnecessary because even full partners who have a perutah-share should be excluded from the word “lecha”, only we learn from “all citizens can sit in one sukkah” that it can belong to many people and the “lecha” only comes to exclude a stolen sukkah. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
726
22.4 - Sukkah Daf 27 A (16 lines Up)
22.4 - Sukkah Daf 27 A (16 lines Up)
Mar 18, 2021
11:54
Today’s learning sponsored In honor of Ami Morgenstern, MAZEL TOV!! Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU= Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat a meal in the sukkah, he can make it up Shemini Atzeres. Summary Challenge: How can he make it up? With bread? So he’s eating the Shemini Atzeres meal. Resolution: He makes it up by eating delicacies, [meats, stuffed vegetables and other delicacies]. (Tosfos learns from this that the 14 meals of Rabbi Eliezer need not be full meals with bread). (Even according to the opinion that one must eat bread on yom tov, but not chol hamoed and if you omit yaaleh v’yavo you need not repeat birkas hamazon.) We also learned a beraisa to this effect: One who missed a yom tov meal can make it up on Shemini Atzeres by eating a delicacy (meat or fish; something that is not a mere nosh). The administrator of King Agripa asked Rabbi Eliezer: It is my custom to eat only one meal a day. Is that enough for me on sukkos too? Rabbi Eliezer: Every day you add many dishes as appetizers (a rich man eats after his meals to incite him to eat more). Can’t you add one dish in honor of your creator? He asked another question: Someone like me who has two wives; one in Tveria and one in Tzipori, am I permitted to have two sukkos in those two cities? Rabbi Eliezer: No. If one leaves from one sukkah to the other, his mitzvah goes lost. Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer: One cannot move between two sukkos (because a sukkah must be built for all 7 days) and one cannot build a sukkah on Chol Hamoed (for the same reason). Chachomim: It is kosher even if it was created in middle of Yom Tov Even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one can rebuild a collapsed sukkah on Chol Hamoed. Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning? Response: It states “Build a sukkah for seven days”: it must be a sukkah that stands seven days. (The Chachomim agree with this understanding of the verse regarding schach. Accordingly, leaves that would wither in less than 7 days are not kosher for schach). Chachomim: It means that the mitzvah lasts seven days but not the sukkah. Everyone agrees that it can be rebuilt. Challenge: Isn’t that obvious? Resolution: The beraisa is teaching that it’s not considered a new building but a continuation of the original sukkah. Tosfos: This applies only if it is rebuilt with the same materials. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
727
22.3 Sukkah Daf 27 A (7 lines Dn)
22.3 Sukkah Daf 27 A (7 lines Dn)
Mar 16, 2021
10:08
Today’s learning sponsored by Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here *https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=* Summary We’ll see that Rabbi Eliezer has different opinions about many principles of the sukkah. Mishna: Rabbi Eliezer: One is obligated to eat 14 meals in the sukkah, mornings and nights for 7 days. Chachomim: He doesn’t have to eat any meals at all except for the first night of sukkos. Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat on the first day (text amended as per Maharsha), he can make it up [Shemini Atzeres]. Chachomim: The first meal is obligatory and cannot be made up. This is one of the things meant by the verse “When something is twisted crooked, you can never straighten it out. Something that’s missing can never be filled in again”. (While you can do teshuva for doing a sin you can never gain a mitzvah that you skipped). Gemara: Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reasoning? Response: It states “You should live in the sukkah” [Teishvu k’ein taduru (21.2)]. All things you would do in your dwelling place [including eating 14 meals over 7 days], you must do in the sukkah. Question: How do the Chachomim explain this verse? Response: Just as one is not compelled to eat meals in his house, he can skip meals in the sukkah. Challenge: Then the first night shouldn’t be obligatory either? Rabbi Yochanan from Rabbi Shimon bar Yehotzadak: Regarding Sukkos it states “The fifteenth”, and regarding eating Matzoh it states “The fifteenth”. Just as there, the first night is an obligation and then it’s optional for the remainder of Yom Tov, so too here*, the first night a meal is obligatory, and afterwards it is optional**. Question: How do we know that eating matzoh the first night of Pesach is obligatory? Response: The possuk states “On that night you must eat matzoh”, the verse imposes it as an obligation. Rabbi Eliezer: If one didn’t eat on the first day, he can make it up Shemini Atzeres. Challenge: But Rabbi Eliezer holds that one must eat meals in the sukkah on all 7 days? [And on the eighth day he can no longer eat in the sukkah (in Eretz Yisroel, we do eat in the sukkah), so when can he make up for what he missed]? Rabbi Ami: Rabbi Eliezer retracted. (His opinion is that only the first night’s meal must be in the sukkah. On all other days he must eat a meal, but it is not related to the law of sukkah. It is only these 13 meals that can be made up on Shemini Atzeres [Tosfos]). Click here to listen to the shiur with Tosfos https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RaOnrRZoD9 qrOK88iGSxF9fOQ7SlmIx/view?usp=sharing * Tosfos quotes from the Yerushalmi a different method of deriving these laws from the pesukim. Additionally the Yerushalmi adds that eating in the sukkah should be similar to Pesach in two aspects. 1. One must build up an appetite for the meal in the sukkah. 2. He must eat at least a kezayis of one of the five grains. * *Tosfos : It seems from here that the obligation of a meal Yom Tov is only for the first night of Yom Tov. Thus, if one omits yaaleh v’yavo he need not repeat birkas hamazon. But the Poskim don’t accept this opinion of Tosfos. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
728
22.2 Sukkah Daf 26 B (11 lines Up)
22.2 Sukkah Daf 26 B (11 lines Up)
Mar 16, 2021
9:05
Today’s learning sponsored Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $72 click here https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU Summary Mishna: It happened that they brought a pottage for Rabban Yochanan ben Zakai to taste, and two dates and some water for Rabban Gamliel. They said: Take it up to the sukkah [on the roof]. When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k’beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth (he ate with tahara and would wash his hands before touching food, but for such a small amount he wouldn’t wash, so he would avoid touching the food directly), he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn’t recite the blessing after it. Gemara: Challenge: Is the mishna quoting a story that contradicts the law it is teaching [Rabbi Tzadok didn’t follow the stringency of Rabban Yochanan ben Zakkai and Rabban Gamliel]? Resolution: The mishna is telling us that with regard to this law one can be stringent and is not considered arrogant (in general it’s not good to be demonstrative with one’s stringencies, but here it’s permitted). When they would give Rabbi Tzadok less than a k’beitzah of food [even bread], he would take it with a cloth, he would eat it outside of the sukkah, and he wouldn’t recite the blessing after it. Challenge: It seems that Rabbi Tzadok would not permit eating a full k’beitzah outside of the sukkah. This would be a challenge to the opinions of Rav Yosef and Abayye (21.6). Resolution: Perhaps the mishna is only teaching Rabbi Tzadok’s law of a beitzah with regard to the laws of netilas yodayim* and birchas hamazon, but one is still allowed to eat a beitzah or more outside of the sukkah. * Tosfos: More than a k’beitzah cannot be eaten by covering one’s hands with a cloth because we’re concerned that he might touch the bread with his hands. But there is a difficulty here, because Rabbi Tzadok was a kohen who is permitted to eat more than a k’beitzah with a cloth. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
729
*29.6 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Up)*
*29.6 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Up)*
Jul 10, 2020
5:02
*29.6 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Up)*Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan: One is only liable for eating unredeemed maaser sheini if it was already brought up to Yerushalayim.*Summary**Challenge:**Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi:* A kohen *in Yerushalayim,* during a year of maaser sheini who wishes to eat a tevel fig and he separates *Terumah, Maaser Rishon and Maaser Sheini, gets malkos * [because he didn’t separate terumas maaser]. *A zar would receive malkos twice* [for eating terumah and terumas maaser]. If he hadn’t said anything he would only receive malkos once, for eating tevel. This is only because he is in Yerushalayim, *outside of Yerushalayim he would be liable for three sets of malkos * [for eating maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim - even though it was never in Yerushalayim - contrary to the ruling of Rabbi Yochanan] ?!*Resolution: True. He would have only been liable for a third malkos if he had taken it out of Yerushalayim.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
730
*29.5 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines before spreads)*
*29.5 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines before spreads)*
Jul 9, 2020
6:09
*29.5 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines before spreads)**Summary**Rav Chanina and Rav Hoshaya (at the gateway to Yerushalayim):*If someone is not in Yerushalayim but the sack of maaser that he is carrying is already in Yerushalayim, it is obvious that it can no longer be redeemed.But *what is the law when he inside* and his sack has not yet crossed the boundary?*Hahu Sobo b’dbei Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai:* The possuk says “mimcha” it means * “from you and all that is connected to you”. * Thus if either he, or his maaser [which he is carrying. Tosfos] is in Yerushalayim, he can no longer redeem it.*Rav Papa: What if he’s holding it at the end of a long stick?**Teiku.* (The question stands). *Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan:* One is only liable for eating unredeemed maaser sheini if *it was already brought up to Yerushalayim.* [It wouldn’t be permissible to eat it before it was brought to Yerushalayim, only the lav wouldn’t apply]. One possuk says “ *Eat it* before Hashem [in Yerushalayim]”, and one possuk says “You cannot *eat it* in your cities”. The second possuk only applies where the first possuk is applicable. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
731
*29.4 Makkos Daf 19 B (9 lines before spreads)*
*29.4 Makkos Daf 19 B (9 lines before spreads)*
Jul 8, 2020
5:46
*29.4 Makkos Daf 19 B (9 lines before spreads)**“It’s a good idea when you get home, some time during the day, take a gemara and review before it fades away. Even if you’re not learning, just to hold the gemara open to impress your family is also a big mitzvah!”*Today’s learning sponsored bySponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Rav Bivi quoting Rav Asi:* Maaser sheini can be redeemed even one step outside the walls of Yerushalayim based on the possuk *“lo suchal se’eiso”.* [The possuk states “if the place is distant from you and you cannot carry it”. The added words ‘and you cannot carry it’ teach that even if the place is not ‘distant from you’ it is still possible to redeem]. *Challenge: This verse comes to teach the law of Rabbi Elazar* (29.3) and is not available for any other drashos. *Resolution: Both laws can be derived from the peculiar wording of the verse.* If it were only to teach Rabbi Elazar’s law, the possuk should have said “lo suchal l’ochlo”. If it were only to teach Rav Asi’s law, the possuk should have said “lo suchal litlo”. * ‘Se’eiso’ includes both teachings.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
732
*29.3 Makkos Daf 19 B (15 lines Dn)*
*29.3 Makkos Daf 19 B (15 lines Dn)*
Jul 7, 2020
6:56
*29.3 Makkos Daf 19 B (15 lines Dn)**Summary**Clarification: Where is it taught* that maaser sheini cannot be eaten when *it is tamei?* (When the eater is is tamei is a clear possuk, the question is when the maaser is tamei). *Answer:* The possuk says “You cannot eat maaser sheini *in your cities”.* Another possuk states: *“In your cities* you can eat (a baal mum ) one who is tamei together with one who is tahor”. *Tanna d’bei Rabbi Yishmael: They can eat together from the same plate* (even though the meat will become tamei). The similar words “in your cities” teach that what is permissible regarding a baal mum (eating tamei food) is *forbidden regarding maaser sheini * (it cannot be eaten when it becomes tamei). Thus it is established that when the mishna (20.2) states: “One who eats maaser sheini which was not redeemed”, it is referring to maaser that is in Yerushalayim [the mishna 26.2 refers to maaser that is outside of Yerushalayim] but has not been redeemed. *Challenge: How do we know that it can be redeemed?* [The possuk says “lo suchal se’eiso” - If one cannot carry up all his maaser to Yerushalayim, he may redeem it and take its monetary value instead. But here we’re learning that even if it was already carried up to Yerushalayim he can still redeem it, if it is tamei and cannot be eaten]. *Resolution: Rabbi Elazar:* Maaser sheini which became tamei can be redeemed even in Yerushalayim based on the possuk * “lo suchal se’eiso”. The word se’eis can mean eating as well,* as we find it regarding the meal Yosef served his brothers. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
733
*29.2 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Dn)*
*29.2 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Dn)*
Jul 6, 2020
7:16
*29.2 Makkos Daf 19 B (3 lines Dn)**Today’s learning sponsored by*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary*Mishna (26.2): One who eats kodshim kalim or [unredeemed] maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim is liable for malkos. *Challenge: This law was already taught* in the beginning of our perek (20.2): “One who eats maaser sheini which was not redeemed - one who eats hekdesh which was not redeemed.”*Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina:* Our mishna discusses a case of maaser sheini which is eaten in purity outside of Yerushalayim. The other mishna discusses *a case of maaser sheini eaten in tumah. **Question: Where is it taught* that maaser sheini cannot be eaten in tumah? *Beraisa: Rabbi Shimon:**The possuk says “I didn’t consume it tamei” * - Neither when I was tahor and it was tamei, nor when I was tamei and it was tahor. *Where is the azhara? * I don’t know. (Later the beraisa will bring a source). *Challenge: There is a clear azhara against a tamei * individual eating maaser: “He shouldn’t eat of the sacred fare until he immerses in the mikvah” (this must refer to maaser because all other hekdesh requires more than just immersion). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
734
*29.1 Makkos Daf 19 A (2 lines Up)*
*29.1 Makkos Daf 19 A (2 lines Up)*
Jul 5, 2020
4:26
*29.1 Makkos Daf 19 A (2 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored by**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) For only 50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUWe learned a beraisa (28.4) regarding the permissibility of eating maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. In 28.6 it was explained that since the zerikah of a bechor requires a mizbeach, we learn a hekesh that eating the bechor also requires a mizbeach.*Summary**Challenge:* A (kodshim) law derived by hekesh cannot be applied elsewhere by means of a hekesh! *Resolution:* Maaser sheini is not kodshim so there are no limitations to what laws can be derived there.*Challenge:* That works only if we look at the learner [maaser] which is not kodshim. But the teacher [bechor] is kodshim. *Resolution:* Actually the law is not derived from eating the bechor which is derived from zerikas hadam of the bechor. Rather the law of maaser is derived from bechor , by means of only one hekesh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
735
*28.6 Makkos Daf 19 A (12 lines Up)*
*28.6 Makkos Daf 19 A (12 lines Up)*
Jul 3, 2020
6:54
*28.6 Makkos Daf 19 A (12 lines Up)*We learned a beraisa (28.4) regarding the permissibility of eating maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. In 28.6 it was explained that since the zerikah of a bechor requires a mizbeach, we learn a hekesh that eating the bechor also requires a mizbeach *Summary**Challenge:* If we hold *“Kedusha rishona kidsha l’asid lavo”* that Yerushalayim maintains its kedusha even after the churban, then Bechor *would* be permissible nowadays [we can build a mizbeach and bring it as a korban]. If we hold * “Kedusha rishona kidsha l’shaata'' * that Yerushalayim lost its kedusha after the churban, then the permissibility of Bechor *is the same question* as maaser sheini! *Ravina:* We hold that *Yerushalayim lost its kedusha. * But there is no question that the bechor is forbidden, because we’re discussing a specific case of *a bechor which had zerikah before the churban. * Since the zerikah was with a mizbeach we learn by means of a hekesh that it must also be eaten with a mizbeach [which is no longer possible]. (Our question is; may we eat maaser sheini in Yerushalayim nowadays when there is no mizbeach? But maaser sheini doesn’t need a mizbeach. We thus compare it to a case of a bechor which doesn’t need a mizbeach either - because any avodah was already done before the churban. Since that bechor is forbidden, we learn that maaser is also forbidden). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
736
*28.5 Makkos Daf 19 A (Middle)*
*28.5 Makkos Daf 19 A (Middle)*
Jul 2, 2020
5:26
*28.5 Makkos Daf 19 A (Middle)*Rav Sheishes said that only Placing is required in order to permit Bikkurim. A source for this was found in a beraisa forbidding the consumption of maaser sheini in Yerushalayim after the churban. It could not deduced logically from Bechor (which is a korban ), nor from Bikkurim (which requires Placing); it was deduced from a hekesh in a possuk. Since the beraisa only mentions that Bikkurim requires Placing and not Reading, it seems that only Placing is required.*Summary**Rav Ashi:* Even according to the opinion that Reading is not “required”, *it is certainly part of the Bikkurim procedure.* Why was Reading not mentioned?*Rav Ashi: Since a ger who brings bikkurim cannot read* a parsha that discusses “our fathers”, Reading was not mentioned. *This beraisa is thus not a proof to Rav Sheishes.**Challenge:* Why is the *“Tzad Hashaveh”* method not employed by this beraisa? (When you can refute two sources for a law in different ways, you combine the two, and deduce from both together), *Resolution:* Both sources share *a common denominator that is absent* in the case of maaser sheini. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
737
*28.4 Makkos Daf 19 A (6 lines Dn)*
*28.4 Makkos Daf 19 A (6 lines Dn)*
Jul 1, 2020
7:57
*28.4 Makkos Daf 19 A (6 lines Dn)**Summary**Rav Sheishes: Placing the bikkurim* in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, *not reading the parsha. *This follows this Tanna:Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi repeated three things from three sages. The first;*Rabbi Yishmael: Maaser Sheini does not become permissible nowadays in Yerushalayim.*A Bechor needs to be brought to a specific place [the beis hamikdash] just like maaser sheini [needs to be brought to yerushalayim]. A bechor cannot be brought nowadays.But perhaps the reason for that is since *a bechor needs to be brought as a korban? **Bikkurim is not brought as a korban * and it still cannot be brought nowadays?*Bikkurim requires Placing* [perhaps maaser sheini which does not, can still be brought nowadays].The possuk compares maaser sheini to bechor, this teaches that * maaser sheini is compared to bechor and cannot be brought nowadays.*It seems from this beraisa that *only placing is necessary, not reading.* If reading were necessary the beraisa would have said “Bikkurim requires placing and reading”. This is then *the source of Rav Sheishes.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
738
*28.3 Makkos Daf 18 B (4 lines Up)*
*28.3 Makkos Daf 18 B (4 lines Up)*
Jun 30, 2020
5:23
*28.3 Makkos Daf 18 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored* by*Mr. & Mrs. Dovid Dukelsky*As an Iluy Neshomo for *Shifra Bas Yeshayahu A"H**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: “V’lakach hakohen haTene miyadecha” refers to tenufah. *Summary**Question: What is Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov’s reasoning* for selecting this possuk as the source for tenufah? *Answer: Since the word Yad is mentioned here.* Regarding tenufah of shelamim we also find the word yad.Yad regarding bikkurim refers to the Yisroel’s hand and Yad regarding shelamim refers to the kohen’s hand. This teaches that in both cases the tenufah must be done by the hand of both, the Kohen and Yisroel. This is possible in practice when the kohen places his hands under the yisroel’s hands and guides him in the tenufah. *Rava bar Ada quoting Rav Yitzchok:* When does bikkurim become prohibited to a zar? When it comes into the azarah [Regarding when it becomes permitted for the kohen see 26.3, 28.1, 28.4]. This follows this Tanna:*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* Bikkurim that was placed at the doorway to the azarah and it is partly inside and *partly outside; what’s outside* is considered chullin and what’s inside is kodesh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
739
*28.2 Makkos Daf 18 B (15 lines before spreads)*
*28.2 Makkos Daf 18 B (15 lines before spreads)*
Jun 29, 2020
5:18
*28.2 Makkos Daf 18 B (15 lines before spreads)*Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya: Placing the bikkurim in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, not reading the parsha. *Summary**Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov* repeated the statement of “Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya” but he credited it to *“Rabbi Asi quoting Rabbi Yochanan”**Rabbi Acha bar Yaakov: Challenge:* This contradicts another statement by Rabbi Yochanan.*Rabbi Asi to Rabbi Yochanan:* When may bikkurim be eaten by kohanim? *Rabbi Yochanan:* If it was separated before Sukkos, *from the reading.* After Sukkos; *from when it was placed* in the beis hamikdash. Above he said, Reading is not what permits the bikkurim, and yet here he says that it is. Above he said that Placing is what permits the bikkurim, and yet here he says that it is not?*Resolution:* When Rabbi Yochanan says that it depends on the Reading, he is expounding *according to Rabbi Shimon* (26.3). When he says it does not depend on the Reading *he is following the Rabbanan* (26.3).When he says it does not depend on the Placing he is expounding *according to Rabbi Yehuda* (in the following beraisa). When he says that it depends on the Placing, *he is following the Rabbanan.**Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda: “V’hinachto” refers to tenufah, * there is another possuk that states “v’hinicho” which refers to Placing. [If there were two pessukim that mentioned Placing, it would be a necessary part of the Bikkurim process.] *Question: Who are the Rabbanan* who argue against this?*Answer: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov:**Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer ben Yaakov: “V’lakach hakohen” refers to tenufah * [not v’hinachto, thus it refers to Placing, and we have two pessukim that require Placing]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
740
*28.1 Makkos Daf 18 B (24 lines Dn)*
*28.1 Makkos Daf 18 B (24 lines Dn)*
Jun 28, 2020
6:41
*28.1 Makkos Daf 18 B (24 lines Dn)**Summary* In 26.3 we learned a difference of opinion regarding what permits the kohen to eat bikkurim, reading the parsha or placing it in the beis hamikdash. *Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya: Placing the bikkurim * in the beis hamikdash permits it for the kohen’s consumption, *not reading the parsha. * [The parsha of bikkurim which mentions “simcha” can only be read until Sukkos.] *Challenge: Rabbi Elazar quoting Rabbi Hoshaya:* “If one separated bikkurim but neglected to bring it until after Sukkos, *it cannot be eaten.”*It seems that the *reading of the parsha is a requirement,* and since in this case it cannot be read, it cannot be eaten.*Resolution:* Up until Sukkos, when it is *possible* to read the parsha, the bikkurim may be eaten without reading. But after Sukkos *when it cannot be read, it cannot be eaten.**In keeping with Rabbi Zeira’s principle.**Rabbi Zeira:* Any mincha that is *capable* of being mixed, need not be mixed. *But if it cannot be mixed, it is not kosher.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
741
*27.6 Makkos Daf 18 B (7 lines Dn)*
*27.6 Makkos Daf 18 B (7 lines Dn)*
Jun 26, 2020
5:17
*27.6 Makkos Daf 18 B (7 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored by* Sunday Kollel Darkei Avigdor *Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Rav Gidal amar Rav: A kohen who eats of chatas and asham before zerikah, gets malkos. *This is based on the possuk “V’ochlu osam asher kupar bahem” - one may only eat from a korban after the kapparah was affected by means of zerikah. *A lav that is inferred from an eseh is considered a lav. **Challenge: Rava:* If an inferred lav suffices, *why is there a lav specifying the forbidden animals?**Resolution:* We must amend the statement by Rav Gidal amar Rav.*Rav Gidal amar Rav: A zar * who eats of chatas and asham before zerikah, *is pattur. *This is based on the possuk “V’ochlu osam asher kupar bahem, * v’zar lo yochal” * - A kohen may eat from a korban after the kapparah was affected by means of zerikah but a zar may not.The lav addressing the zar only applies to a korban that a kohen can eat, but *the lav does not apply before zerikah. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
742
*27.5 Makkos Daf 18 A (2 lines Up)*
*27.5 Makkos Daf 18 A (2 lines Up)*
Jun 25, 2020
4:42
*27.5 Makkos Daf 18 A (2 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored by*Pinny Tzinner* and *Yanky Borger* in honor of *Reb Yoel Lax*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURava: If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah].*Summary**Challenge: But there is another lav * as quoted by Rabbi Eliezer:*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “Kodesh should not be eaten”; This is a lav against eating kodesh that became possul. [An olah that eaves the azarah becomes possul]. *Resolution:* That possuk refers to * kodesh that was fit to be eaten before it became possul, * but it cannot be applied to olah. *Challenge: But there is another lav * quoted by Rabbi Eliezer.*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “Kalil sihiyeh lo sei’achel”; This is a * lav against eating of an olah. **Resolution: Indeed, Rava would quote this possuk * for a sixth lav, Rava was referring to the lavin taught by Rabbi Shimon [Maharam]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
743
*27.4 Makkos Daf 18 A (5 lines Dn)*
*27.4 Makkos Daf 18 A (5 lines Dn)*
Jun 24, 2020
5:25
*27.4 Makkos Daf 18 A (5 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored by*Yerachmiel and Shoshana Weiss* in honor of *Binyomin’s Bar Mitzvah*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURava: If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah]. *Summary**Challenge: But there is another lav; * “A zar should not eat kodesh”. *Resolution:* That possuk refers to * kodesh that is being eaten by kohanim, * but it cannot be applied to olah. *Challenge: But there is another lav; * “basar basadeh treifah lo socheilu” (this lav is not necessary for treifah, and the word basadeh is superfluous) which means that *meat “outside of its proper place* (basadeh)” should not be eaten.*Resolution:* That lav refers to *meat that may be eaten inside its proper place,* but it cannot be applied to olah. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
744
*27.3 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Up)*
*27.3 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Up)*
Jun 23, 2020
6:58
*27.3 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rav Shaul Yechezkel Schwartz Shlita* for his selfless dedication to the klalSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Shimon derived certain lavin from a possuk based on logical arguments. Since lavin cannot be established by logic, we understand that he derived ‘prohibitions’ not actual ‘lavin’. *Summary**Challenge: Rabbi Shimon is referring to a lav. **Rava:* If a non-kohen ate from an olah before zerikah, outside of Yerushalayim, he would be liable for *five sets of malkos according to Rabbi Shimon* [For all the lavin previously derived by Rabbi Shimon; 1, Eating outside Yerushalayim, 2, eating outside the azarah, 3, eating an olah, 4, by a non-kohen, 5, before zerikah]. *Resolution:* Rava does not mean five lavin, *he actually means five prohibitions.**Challenge:* The mishna states *“These are liable for malkos” * [and two of Rabbi Shimon’s lavin are mentioned, it seems they’re bona fide lavin]. *Resolution:* The lavin are not derived by logic but by the *superfluity of the verse.*Earlier in Devarim 12, all of these admonishments are detailed; in our possuk they’re repeated as prohibitions. But the possuk could have said “You may not eat them in your gates”. *From the possuk’s repetition of all the details we learn a lav on each detail.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
745
*27.2 Makkos Daf 17 B (12 lines Dn)*
*27.2 Makkos Daf 17 B (12 lines Dn)*
Jun 22, 2020
7:36
*27.2 Makkos Daf 17 B (12 lines Dn)*Rava praised Rabbi Shimon’s explanation of a possuk (26.4-26.6) although the entire explanation does not hold up logically.*Summary*Rabbi Shimon said (26.5) that * bechor is more lenient than chatas and asham. * Bechor is kodshim kalim while * chatas and asham are kodshei kodshim. **However, bechor acquires kedusha from birth* but not chatas and asham. Bechor is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.6) that * chatas and asham are more lenient than olah. * Chatas and asham are only partly burned on the mizbeach while *the olah is entirely burned on the mizbeach. **However, chatas and asham wipe out aveiros, * but not olah. Chatas and asham are thus not necessarily more lenient.Additionally, *all korbanos have an advantage over olah in that they can be eaten* by kohanim , but not olah. *Question:* Since Rava refuted everything Rabbi Shimon said; *why did he praise Rabbi Shimon* (26.6) so strongly?*Answer:* Rava was praising *Rabbi Shimon’s methodology* in dissecting the possuk not his logic.Rabbi Shimon derived certain lavin from a possuk (24.4-24.6) based on logical arguments.*Challenge: A lav cannot be derived from logic!* [“Ein mazhirin min hadin” A lav must be openly stated by the Torah]. *Even those who hold that we can punish* based on logic [onshin min hadin, 7.3, 21.6] agree that a lav cannot be derived from logic.*Resolution:* Rabbi Shimon did not derive a lav, only a prohibition (The Rov spoke about laws of burial here). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
746
*27.1 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Dn)*
*27.1 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Dn)*
Jun 21, 2020
6:41
*27.1 Makkos Daf 17 B (4 lines Dn)*Rava praised Rabbi Shimon’s explanation of a possuk (26.4-26.6) although the entire explanation does not hold up logically.*Summary*Rabbi Shimon said (26.4) that *maaser sheini is more lenient than bikkurim. * Maaser sheini is permissible for zarim (any Jew) while * bikkurim can only be eaten by kohanim. **However, maaser sheini is forbidden for onenim * (a person whose close relative died on that day), but not bikkurim. Maaser sheini is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.4) that * maaser sheini is more lenient than todah and shelamim. * Maaser sheini is not brought onto the mizbeach while *parts of the todah and shelamim are burned on the mizbeach * [and they cannot be eaten by onenim]. *However, maaser sheini can only be redeemed with kesef tzurah * (coins stamped by the government), but not todah and shelamim which can be redeemed with anything of value. Maaser sheini is thus not necessarily more lenient.Rabbi Shimon said (26.5) that * todah and shelamim are more lenient than bechor. * Todah and shelamim must be sanctified while *the bechor is sanctified by birth.**However, todah and shelamim require semicha, nesachim and tenufah, * but not bechor. Todah and shelamim are thus not necessarily more lenient. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
747
*26.6 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Up)*
*26.6 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Up)*
Jun 19, 2020
6:00
*26.6 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Up)*Rabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk , but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk , he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses. [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Summary**Beraisa Continued:**Nedarecha refers to olah * [ todah and shelamim were already mentioned].It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten after zerikas hadam by a Yisroel because *even the more lenient bechor* may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside the azarah because *even the more lenient chatas and asham * may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that it cannot be eaten at all [even by a kohen, in the azarah after zerikah ]. (All the halachos mentioned in this beraisa were already known. Rabbi Shimon is providing a lav for all these prohibitions based on this possuk) *Rava: Rabbi Shimon employs such remarkable methodology in this beraisa * that a woman who is having a child shouldn’t settle for less than Rabbi Shimon! (In ancient times Jewish mothers would pray and make vows to merit a child who is among the Chachomim, we thus find that Shlomo’s mother referred to him as “child of my vows”). *Even though I can logically refute everything* that was said. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
748
*26.5 Makkos Daf 17 A (10 lines Up)*
*26.5 Makkos Daf 17 A (10 lines Up)*
Jun 18, 2020
4:02
*26.5 Makkos Daf 17 A (10 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored* as a zechus for the speedy recovery of *Reb. Elazer ben Mirel**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk , but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk , he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses. [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Summary**Beraisa Continued:**Ubechoros refers to bechor. **Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten by a Yisroel* [even in Yerushalayim, after zerikah ].*Ubekorcha V’tzoncha refers to chatas and asham.**Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten before zerikas hadam because *even the more lenient todah and shelamim * may only be eaten after zerikas hadam; we don’t need a possuk for that.It cannot mean that it may not be eaten after zerikas hadam by a Yisroel because *even the more lenient bechor * may only be eaten by a kohen; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten outside the azarah * [even by a kohen, in Yerushalayim after zerikah ]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
749
*26.4 Makkos Daf 17 A (15 lines after spreads)*
*26.4 Makkos Daf 17 A (15 lines after spreads)*
Jun 17, 2020
7:06
*26.4 Makkos Daf 17 A (15 lines after spreads)**“Today when you come home, break the ice and make a beginning! Take a gemara and say the words of the gemara aloud for a few minutes! It will transform the atmosphere of your homes!”*A kohen who eats bikkurim before the parsha was read isliable for malkos. This mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Shimon.*Summary**Question: Where do we find Rabbi Shimon expressing this opinion?**Answer: In the following Beraisa* . (Here Rabbi Shimon is expounding on a possuk, but he doesn’t go in the order of the possuk, he skips around and rearranges the possuk to best suit his exegeses). [The possuk is a lav against eating a number of things “in your gates”, outside Yerushalayim.] *Terumas Yadcha refers to bikkurim * [which is lifted up by the hand].*Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten until the parsha was read.**V’nidvosecha refers to todah and shelamim * [these are voluntary korbanos].*Rabbi Shimon:* What can this prohibition mean?It cannot mean that it may not be eaten outside of Yerushalayim, because *even the more lenient maaser sheini * may only be eaten inside Yerushalayim; we don’t need a possuk for that.It must teach that *it cannot be eaten before zerikas hadam. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
750
*26.3 Makkos Daf 17 A (11 lines after spreads)*
*26.3 Makkos Daf 17 A (11 lines after spreads)*
Jun 16, 2020
4:56
*26.3 Makkos Daf 17 A (11 lines after spreads)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=A kohen who eats bikkurim before the parsha was read is liable for malkos. *Summary**Gemara:**Rabbah bar bar Chana amar Rabbi Yochanan:* This is an *anonymous record of Rabbi Akiva’s words.*The opinion of the *Chachomim* is that only *placing the bikkurim * in the beis hamikdash is necessary before they can be eaten, not reading the parsha. *Challenge: This can be attributed to Rabbi Shimon* [who says so openly, 26.4]?*Resolution:* Rabbi Yochanan attributes this to Rabbi Akiva, thus teaching that *he agrees with the principle (later) taught by Rabbi Shimon* even though we do not have it recorded anywhere. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
751
*26.2 Makkos Daf 17 A (6 lines after spreads)*
*26.2 Makkos Daf 17 A (6 lines after spreads)*
Jun 15, 2020
5:23
*26.2 Makkos Daf 17 A (6 lines after spreads)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU*Summary**Mishna:* A kohen who *eats bikkurim before the parsha * was read.A kohen who *eats kodshei kodshim * [such as a chatas] *outside the curtain* [of the mishkan , or outside the wall of the beis hamikdash ].One who *eats kodshim kalim or [unredeemed] maaser sheini outside of Yerushalayim.*If one *breaks a bone in a tahor Pesach* offering.These are all *liable for malkos. *If one leaves over of a * tahor Pesach offering (nosar) * or *breaks a bone in a tamei Pesach* offering; he does *not get malkos. *One who *takes a mother bird* together with its eggs or hatchlings;*Rabbi Yehuda: He receives malkos * (it is not a lav hanitak l’eseh). *Chachomim:* He can send them away and be *absolved from malkos. *The rule is: *Any lav that is followed by an eseh is absolved from malkos. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
752
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)* *[Earlier version was missing part of the audio]*
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)* *[Earlier version was missing part of the audio]*
Jun 15, 2020
5:42
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)**[Earlier version was missing part of the audio]* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
753
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)*
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)*
Jun 14, 2020
5:42
*26.1 Makkos Daf 17 A (3 lines Dn)*Rav: There is malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani [terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].Rav Yosef: There is a disagreement among the tannaim on this matter.Rabbi Elazar: Maaser ani need not be separated from demai.Chachomim: It must be designated but it need not be separated.It would seem that the opinion of the Chachomim is that until maaser ani is separated the produce remains tevel, while Rabbi Elazar holds that there is no tevel with regard to maaser ani.SummaryAbayye to Rav Yosef: If that is their argument, why are they discussing demai? They can discuss tevel.Both Rabbi Elazar and the Chachomim agree with Rav’s premise. Their argument is only regarding demai.Rabbi Elazar holds that an am ha’aretz is not suspected of withholding maaser ani; since there is no penalty for keeping it. He thus separates it, and his demai is not tevel.The Chachomim suspect the am ha’aretz of being too lazy to bother with maaser ani even though there is no monetary loss involved.Mishna (20.3): How much tevel grain must one eat in order to be liable?Rabbi Shimon: Any amount.Chachomim: A kezayis.Rabbi Shimon to the Chachomim: “Wouldn’t you agree that one is liable for eating an ant, even though it’s very small?”Chachomim: One ant is a biryah [a complete creation].Rabbi Shimon: Even one kernel is a biryah.Rav Bivi quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: They argue over wheat kernels, but if it was ground into flour, Rabbi Shimon agrees that one must eat a kezayis.Rabbi Yirmiyah quoting Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Rabbi Shimon holds that one is always liable for malkos for any amount. (The shiur of kezayis may be relevant to the laws of korbanos chattas, but not to receiving malkos). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
754
*25.6 Makkos Daf 16 B (3 lines Up)*
*25.6 Makkos Daf 16 B (3 lines Up)*
Jun 14, 2020
4:48
*25.6 Makkos Daf 16 B (3 lines Up)*Rav: There is malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani [ terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].*Summary**Rav Yosef: There is a disagreement* among the tannaim on this matter. The following mishna discusses Demai; although most amei ha’aretz keep the laws of maaser, Chazal instituted the laws of demai requiring food purchased from an am ha’aretz to be maasered again, in case the am ha’aretz was not careful with the laws. Maaser only has to be separated; since it is only a monetary obligation and there is no proof that it is owed (the am ha’aretz may have already given it), it need not be given to the levi. Terumah must be given because eating terumah is a torah prohibition. *Rabbi Elazar: Maaser ani need not be separated* from demai. *Chachomim: It must be designated* but it need not be separated.It would seem that *the opinion of the Chachomim is* that until maaser ani is separated *the produce remains tevel, * while *Rabbi Elazar* holds that *there is no tevel with regard to maaser ani. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
755
*25.5 Makkos Daf 16 B (18 lines Up)*
*25.5 Makkos Daf 16 B (18 lines Up)*
Jun 11, 2020
7:08
*25.5 Makkos Daf 16 B (18 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rabbi Mordechai Steinharter**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUOne who eats an ant is liable for five sets of *malkos.**Summary**Rabbah bar Huna:* If one squashed nine ants, and added a whole* ant, thereby completing a kezayis, he is liable for six sets of malkos. Five for the one whole ant, and one because he ate a kezayis of neveilah (that’s a chiddush that a dead sheretz is considered neveilah, and that the issur of neveilah is chal on the issur of sheretz). *Rabbah amar Rabbi Yochanan:* Even** if he squashed two ants and added a whole ant.*Rav Yosef:* Even if there was only one squashed ant.*They’re all in agreement,* it just depends on the size of the added ant.*Rav:* There is * malkos for one who eats tevel of maaser ani * [ terumos and maasros were already separated from it, only maaser ani was not].*Question: This is in accordance with whose opinion?* (It’s a big chiddush since there’s no penalty for eating the maaser itself, it’s only considered as if he stole from the aniyim). *Answer:* It’s based on the following beraisa. *Beraisa: Rabbi Yosi: In the possuk prohibiting eating* maaser outside of Yerushalayim the word *“B’she’arecha”* is used. This word is also found regarding maaser ani, we thus learn that *it is prohibited to eat.* **Tosfos:* Chai must be translated “whole” not “live” because we’re referring to neveilah. The sheretz must be whole so that all of the lavin should apply. But even when a sheretz is not whole, some of the lavin apply.** Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Yosef are adding that even if the whole ant only completes the zayis because it is not squashed, it is still considered a kezayis. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
756
*25.4 Makkos Daf 16 B (17 lines Dn)*
*25.4 Makkos Daf 16 B (17 lines Dn)*
Jun 10, 2020
6:17
*25.4 Makkos Daf 16 B (17 lines Dn)*Today’s learning sponsored*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!)* for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=Mishna (20.2): One who eats shekatzim and remasim is liable for malkos .*Summary**Rav Yehuda: One who eats Binisa D’bei Karba * (a small fishlike creature that is found in the burrows of plowed up ground, Tosfos) *is punished with malkos * based on the possuk prohibiting a land dwelling sheretz. There was *a man who ate binisa d’bei karba * (it looks like a fish that has fins and scales, and if it would live in the water it would be kosher), and *Rav Yehuda gave him malkos * (because it’s not a fish and does not become kosher with fins and scales. The Rabbanim in Bavel had the authority to administer malkos). *Abayye:* One who eats *Putisa* (a water insect) is liable for *four sets of malkos * [there are two general lavin for forbidden creatures, and an additional two for a water sheretz]. One who eats an *ant* is liable for *five sets of malkos * [the two general lavin and another three that are written regarding land creatures]. One who eats a wasp is liable for six sets of malkos [the five previous ones as well as an additional lav for flying creatures]. [One of these general lavin is “Lo sishaktzu - you shouldn’t abominate yourself”] *Rav Achai: One who puts off urinating or defecating, is in violation of Lo Sishaktzu* [Don’t abominate yourself - get rid of your waste when you get the urge. (some consider this a d’rabbanan because it is not the main teaching of the verse)]. *Rav Bivi bar Abayye: If one uses a bloodletter’s vessel* (even if it’s clean) *to drink from, he is in violation of Bal Tishaktzu* (this issur is also d’rabbanan). [This teaches that the Torah is displeased with people who do disgusting things]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
757
*25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)*
*25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)*
Jun 9, 2020
19:35:52
*25.3 Makkos Daf 16 B (9 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: Are there no more than two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty? What about Pei’ah? If it was already turned into flour, the opportunity to separate pei’ah is ruined. One would be liable for malkos even if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo. *Summary**Resolution: Rabbi Yochanan excludes Pei’ah in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael* who says that pei’ah can even be set aside once it was turned into dough.*Challenge: What if he consumed the dough?* Even Rabbi Yishmael would agree that he ruined any opportunity to fulfill the eseh in such a case.*Resolution:* The second case of Rabbi Yochanan (24.5) was *indeed Pei’ah.*Rabbi Elazar’s opinion (24.6) that oneis is the second case, was based on the statement of Ameimar (25.1) that a neder contingent on the public’s opinion cannot be revoked. However *this rule does not apply to a case of a mitzvah. * (See 25.1; it is impossible to revoke it because it would require the public’s consent. However in the case of a mitzvah we can assume the public would consent). Since there is an eseh for the oneis to take her as a wife, he cannot swear her off effectively.There was a mikra teacher who was too rough with the boys. *Rav Acha forced him to take a neder al daas rabim * that he will never teach boys again. *Ravina reinstated him* because they could not find another teacher who was so precise. [Since it was a mitzvah to have him teaching the boys, Ravina overruled the neder al daas rabim]. (We also see that it’s a mitzvah to teach chumash with precision; Yoav ben Tzeruyah was taught “zachar Amalek” instead of “zecher Amalek” and it led to a great error in practice). See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
758
*25.2 Makkos Daf 16 A (Bottom line)*
*25.2 Makkos Daf 16 A (Bottom line)*
Jun 8, 2020
21:34:01
*25.2 Makkos Daf 16 A (Bottom line)*Today’s learning sponsoredSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTURabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: Are there no more than two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty? What about a case of a mashkon ? The Torah states “Do not enter his house to collect a collateral” and “You should return it”.Resolution: Since this is a case of monetary obligation, he does not receive malkos. *Summary**Challenge:* What about *the collateral of a ger ?* [When a ger passes away without children there are no heirs, and he had destroyed the collateral and can no longer pay it back].*Resolution: He has not ruined his opportunity of fulfilling the eseh, * it was ruined by the ger’s death [destroying the collateral has no bearing on fulfilling the eseh. It is only the ger’s death which ruins the opportunity to fulfill the eseh, and the death was not caused by the debtor]. *Challenge: What about Pei’ah?* The Torah states “Do not cut everything down” and “You shall leave over for the poor and needy”.This carries a malkos liability *even if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo, * as we’ve learned in a mishna: It is a mitzvah to separate pei’ah from the standing grain. If he didn’t, he must separate from the sheaves. If he didn’t, he must separate from the threshed grain (even though it would seem that it underwent a change). If he didn’t and winnowed it he must now separate maaser and then he must separate pei’ah. [If however it was already turned into flour, the opportunity to fulfill pei’ah is ruined, thus we see a case of a lav hanitak l’eseh where it is possible to ruin the opportunity for the eseh!]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
759
*25.1 Makkos Daf 16 A (10 lines Up)*
*25.1 Makkos Daf 16 A (10 lines Up)*
Jun 7, 2020
11:23:15
*25.1 Makkos Daf 16 A (10 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored*לעילוי נשמת זקינתי האשה החשובה מרת יוטל בת ר' יוסף ע"ה, תנצב"הSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 click hereRabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.Rabbi Elazar, the other one is Oneis.Challenge: How can an oneis receive malkos if we hold bitlo v’lo bitlo?! *Summary**Rav Shimi of Chozna’ah:* If the ex-husband *accepted kiddushin on her behalf,* he has ruined his opportunity to marry her.*Rava:* If she authorized him to accept the kiddushin, then *she is the one* who ruined his opportunity [and he does not receive malkos ]. If he wasn’t authorized, *his actions have no validity!**Rav Shimi of Neharda’a:* In a case where the husband makes *a public neder * not to benefit from her, he can no longer marry her and he has ruined his opportunity.*Challenge:* Whether *a public neder can be revoked* is a matter of dispute. If it can be revoked, this husband has not ruined his opportunity.*Resolution:* It’s a case where the husband made *a neder al daas rabim * (contingent on the public’s opinion, this cannot be revoked since the entire public - every jew - would have to be consulted for his opinion) as per Ameimar.*Ameimar:* A public neder can be revoked. *A neder contingent on the public’s opinion cannot be revoked.**Challenge: Are there no more than two* lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty?*What about gezel ?* The Torah states “Do not steal” and “Return what was stolen”.*Or a mashkon ?* The Torah states “Do not enter his house to collect a collateral” and “You should return it”.Both of these cases *can incur the malkos penalty even according to bitlo v’lo bitlo, * in a case where the stolen object or the collateral is destroyed.*Resolution: Since these are cases of monetary obligation, he does not receive malkos * (5.3). [Tosfos: Even if he destroyed the stolen item, he always has an obligation to pay].*Challenge:* What about *the collateral of a ger ?* [When a ger passes away without children there are no heirs, and he can no longer pay it back].*Resolution: He has not ruined his opportunity of fulfilling the eseh, * it was ruined by the ger’s death. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
760
*24.6 Makkos Daf 16 A (3 line After spreads)*
*24.6 Makkos Daf 16 A (3 line After spreads)*
Jun 5, 2020
21:59:15
*24.6 Makkos Daf 16 A (3 line After spreads)* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
761
*24.5 Makkos Daf 16 A (1 line before spreads)*
*24.5 Makkos Daf 16 A (1 line before spreads)*
Jun 4, 2020
4:19:15
*24.5 Makkos Daf 16 A (1 line before spreads)**Today’s learning sponsored*In honor of *Rabbi Eluzer Gips* and the *Birkas Avrohom Daf Yomi Shiur**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*Summary**Tnan Hasam* (a Mishna from a different masichta):*Rabbi Yehuda: Shiluach Hakan is not a lav hanitak l’eseh, * one who takes the mother bird is immediately punished with malkos. (We don’t follow this opinion). *Chachamim:* He is given the option of sending away the mother bird and not receiving malkos . It *is a lav hanitak l’eseh * and there is no malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh. *Rabbi Yochanan: Shiluach Hakan is one of only two lav hanitak l’esehs that have the possibility of carrying a malkos penalty.* [Rabbi Yochanan holds “bitlo v’lo bitlo” (23.6): There is only malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh when one ruins any opportunity to do the eseh. This is possible in the case of Shiluach Hakan when he kills the mother bird, and in one more case]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
762
*24.4 Makkos Daf 16 A (19 lines Dn)*
*24.4 Makkos Daf 16 A (19 lines Dn)*
Jun 3, 2020
14:25:15
*24.4 Makkos Daf 16 A (19 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah .Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. Rabbi Yochanan: Malkos is not administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. Reish Lakish: Malkos is administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. They each claim a source for this opinion from the Beraisa in which Rabbi Yehuda teaches that Nosar is not punishable by malkos because it’s a lav hanitak l’eseh. It would however also be a hasra’as safek (support for Rabbi Yochanan) as well as a lav she’ein bo maaseh (support for ReishLakish).The support to Rabbi Yochanan is a challenge to Reish Lakish.Reish Lakish quotes a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda which proves that his opinion was: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. *Summary**Challenge to Rabbi Yochanan:* The support to Reish Lakish is a challenge to Rabbi Yochanan. [If there is indeed no malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh, why does the beraisa explain the lack of malkos because of lav hanitak l’eseh?] *Resolution:* There is a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda that proves it is so:Rav Idi bar Avin amar Rav Amram amar Rabbi Yitzchok amar Rabbi Yochanan:*Rabbi Yehuda from Rabbi Yosi Haglili: There is no malkos for a lav she’ein bo maaseh * with the exception of Nishba [a false oath (an oath which is false from the time it is taken, unlike the case in 24.2 where the oath was not fulfilled)], Meimar [exchanging a korban for a different animal], Mekallel Bashem [cursing with the name of Hashem]. *Difficulty: Rabbi Yehuda made contradictory statements.*[In 24.2 he said that Nosar, despite being a lav she’ein bo maaseh and a hasra’as safek, is not punishable by malkos solely because it is a lav hanitak l’eseh *( lav she’ein bo maaseh and hasra’as safek are both punishable by malkos ).* And yet, in 24.3 he said that * hasra’as safek would not cause a malkos * liability, and here in 24.4 he said that * lav she’ein bo maaseh would not cause a malkos * liability!]*Reish Lakish: Different tannaim * taught the beraisas quoted in 24.2 and 24.3, they disagree on what Rabbi Yehuda’s position was.*Rabbi Yochanan:* The beraisa brought here is quoting *Rabbi Yehuda’s teacher* . Rabbi Yehuda’s own position is recorded by the beraisa in 24.2. Also attached is daf טז to print. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
763
*24.3 Makkos Daf 16 A (13 lines Dn)*
*24.3 Makkos Daf 16 A (13 lines Dn)*
Jun 2, 2020
23:55:15
*24.3 Makkos Daf 16 A (13 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah. Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. Rabbi Yochanan: Malkos is not administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. Reish Lakish: Malkos is administered for a lav she’ein bo maaseh. They each claim a source for this opinion from the Beraisa in which Rabbi Yehuda teaches that Nosar is not punishable by malkos because it’s a lav hanitak l’eseh. It would however also be a hasra’as safek as well as a lav she’ein bo maaseh. *Summary**Challenge to Reish Lakish: Perhaps the beraisa proves that hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah? **Resolution:* There is a different statement by Rabbi Yehuda that proves it is not so:*If one hit or cursed both his possible fathers* (his mother remarried immediately after her divorce and the child may have been fathered by either on of the husbands), he is liable.*Rabbi Yehuda: He can only be punished if he hit or cursed them simultaneously* [otherwise it’s a hasra’as safek]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
764
*24.2 Makkos Daf 15 B (4 lines Up)*
*24.2 Makkos Daf 15 B (4 lines Up)*
Jun 1, 2020
9:27:26
*24.2 Makkos Daf 15 B (4 lines Up)*Rabbi Yochanan: Hasra’as safek is a valid hasra’ah. Reish Lakish: Hasra’as safek is not a valid hasra’ah. *Summary**They follow their opinions elsewhere.*If one swore he would eat a certain bread on a particular day and *the day passed and the bread remained uneaten; he is not punished* by malkos. *Rabbi Yochanan:* Because it’s a * lav sh’ein bo maaseh * (a transgression without an action).*Reish Lakish:* Because it’s a * hasra’as safek * (at the time of the hasra’ah the witnesses could not be sure he would indeed transgress).*Their debate is in the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda:**Beraisa:**Rabbi Yehuda:* Nosar (leaving part of a korban uneaten) is not punishable by malkos *because it is a lav hanitak l’eseh .**Rabbi Yochanan:* If it wouldn’t be a lav hanitak l’eseh there would be malkos *even though the hasra’ah would be a hasra’as safek. **Reish Lakish:* If it wouldn’t be a lav hanitak l’eseh there would be malkos *even though it’s a lav sh’ein bo maaseh. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
765
*24.1 Makkos Daf 15 B (3 lines Dn)*
*24.1 Makkos Daf 15 B (3 lines Dn)*
May 31, 2020
4:40:46
*24.1 Makkos Daf 15 B (3 lines Dn)**Summary**A learner* in the presence *of Rabbi Yochanan:* In the case of a lav hanitak l’eseh, if he fulfilled the eseh as soon as he was warned by beis din *(kiymo)*, *he is absolved* from malkos. If however he ruined the opportunity to do the eseh *(bitlo)*, *he receives malkos. **Rabbi Yochanan: What are you saying?* (He saw that he was mixing together two extremes).*Learn: “Bitlo * receives malkos, * lo bitlo * is absolved from malkos.” *Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish: Kiymo, * if he fulfilled the eseh as soon as he was warned by beis din, he is absolved from malkos. However in a case of * lo kiymo, * he would receive malkos. *Question:* What is this argument based on?*Answer:* It depends on the question of hasra’as safek [a doubtful hasra’ah, that is when the eidim giving the hasra’ah cannot know whether a transgression will indeed take place]. *Rabbi Yochanan: It is considered a valid hasra’ah.* [One can therefore be warned upon transgressing the lav and receive malkos a long time later upon ruining the opportunity to do the eseh]. *Reish Lakish: It is not a valid hasra’ah.* [One can receive malkos for a lav hanitak l’eseh because the malkos is not dependent on the eseh*]. * Listen to the recording with Tosfos for more clarity on this point. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
766
*23.5 Makkos Daf 15 A (5 lines Up) & 23.6*
*23.5 Makkos Daf 15 A (5 lines Up) & 23.6*
May 28, 2020
22:11:54
*23.5 Makkos Daf 15 A (5 lines Up) & 23.6*Today’s learning sponsoredלזכות *פינחס יהודה בן חיה עלא,* שנזכה לקבל התורה ללמוד וללמד לשמור ולעשות ולקיים באהבהSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUWe learned (23.1) that there is malkos for transgressing a lav shekadmo eseh. *Summary**Rav Papa to Rava: But it is different from the lav of chasimah ?!* [Malkos is administered only for something similar to chasimah (see 20.4)]. *Rava: Why would an extra eseh change the nature of the lav ?**Rav Papa: Would you argue the same for lav hanitak l’eseh ? (20.4)**Rava:* When the eseh is written after the lav, *its purpose is to mitigate the lav. * But a lav shekadmo eseh is a more severe lav and shouldn’t be absolved of punishment. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
767
*23.4 Makkos Daf 15 A (9 lines before spreads)
*23.4 Makkos Daf 15 A (9 lines before spreads)
May 27, 2020
10:02:19
*23.4 Makkos Daf 15 A (9 lines before spreads) See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
768
23.3 Makkos Daf 15 A (15 lines Dn)
23.3 Makkos Daf 15 A (15 lines Dn)
May 26, 2020
23:21:04
23.3 Makkos Daf 15 A (15 lines Dn)Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUIf an oneis was married and divorced he can remarry her, and will not receive malkos. We see from here that a lav shekadmo eseh is just like any other lav hanitak l’eseh and is pattur from malkos. Ulla: The eseh here is superfluous because it can be learned from motzi shem ra. Since the sin of oneis is more grievous than that of motzi shem ra, we understand that the eseh surely applies.Thus we use the principle of im ein inyan to move the eseh after the lav and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. *Summary**Challenge:* While the sin of oneis may be more grievous, * motzi shem ra is treated more severely* by the Torah; offenders are penalized with both malkos and monetary fines.*Alternate Explanation: The eseh of motzi shem ra is superfluous* because it can be learned from * oneis. *Since motzi shem ra is treated by the Torah more severely than oneis, we understand that the eseh written regarding oneis surely applies.We then use the principle of * im ein inyan * to move the eseh to motzi shem ra. Since it is not necessary there, *we apply the principle again to move the eseh after the lav * and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
769
*23.2 Makkos Daf 15 A (4 lines Dn)*
*23.2 Makkos Daf 15 A (4 lines Dn)*
May 25, 2020
11:38:51
*23.2 Makkos Daf 15 A (4 lines Dn)**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=Rabbah bar bar Chanah quoted Rabbi Yochanan as enunciating a rule that a lav shekadmo eseh is not considered a lav hanitak l’eseh and carries a malkos penalty.Rabbi Yochanan retracted.Rabbah proved this law from our mishna.*Summary**Question: What caused Rabbi Yochanan to retract his opinion?**Answer:* It was contradicted by *the law of Oneis.* [The possuk states regarding an oneis “He must take her for his wife” (eseh) “He can never divorce her” (lav)] *Beraisa:* If an oneis was married and divorced. *If he can remarry her, he must* do so. If he’s a kohen and cannot remarry her, he receives malkos. Why does her husband not receive malkos [in most cases]? While it seems to be a lav hanitak l’eseh it is in fact a lav shekadmo eseh .We see from here that *a lav shekadmo eseh is just like any other lav hanitak l’eseh. **Ulla:* The eseh here is superfluous because *it can be learned from motzi shem ra. * Since the sin of oneis is more grievous than that of motzi shem ra , we understand that the eseh surely applies.Thus we use the principle of * im ein inyan to move the eseh after the lav * and render it a lav hanitak l’eseh. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
770
*23.1 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Up)*
*23.1 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Up)*
May 24, 2020
1:26:40
*23.1 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of *Rochel bas Reizel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=*Summary* [Some Torah prohibitions are categorized as a lav hanitak l’eseh; a lav that gets moved over, and becomes an eseh (5.3). For instance “do not leave over from kodesh meat”, “any meat that is left over should be burned”. By means of the added eseh, the Torah is telling us how to remedy transgression of the lav, and such a lav is not liable for malkos.] *Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar Rabbi Yochanan: An eseh that precedes the lav * [There are two ways of understanding this. 1. It is written earlier in the possuk. 2. The eseh is doable before the lav was transgressed], does not make it a lav hanitak l’eseh, and it *carries a malkos penalty.*They said *to Rabbi Yochanan:* Did you say so? And *he denied it.* [Although those asking him may have heard it from his mouth, since he had fully retracted his opinion, he denied his first conclusion. This was to indicate that he retracted fully and believed his first opinion to have been a complete error]. *Rabbah: I swear he said so.* And it was founded on the words of the Mishna.*It is written:* “Temei’im are to be sent away from the camp” ( eseh ) “And they may not contaminate the camp [by entering in a state of tumah]” (lav). *We learned in the Mishna* (20.2) [among those who receive malkos ] “One who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah ”. Evidently, * malkos is applicable to a lav preceded by an eseh. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
771
*22.6 Makkos Daf 14 B (6 lines Up)*
*22.6 Makkos Daf 14 B (6 lines Up)*
May 22, 2020
5:46:03
*22.6 Makkos Daf 14 B (6 lines Up)**Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of Rochel bas Reizel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUAccording to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.Rabbi Yochanan derived it from a gezeirah shaveh .*Summary*There is a Beraisa that *supports the opinion of Reish Lakish.**Beraisa:* “She must not touch any kodesh ”. *This is an azhara forbidding a tamei from eating kodesh .**Perhaps it prohibits touching?*The possuk says “She must not touch kodesh nor enter the mikdash”. *Entry to the mikdash is a capital crime.*Since touching kodesh is not known to be a capital crime, only eating kodesh, we understand that *the possuk refers to eating kodesh .* (22.4) [Some Torah prohibitions are categorized as a lav hanitak l’eseh; a lav that gets moved over, and becomes an eseh (5.3). For instance “do not leave over from kodesh meat”, “any meat that is left over should be burned”. By means of the added eseh, the Torah is telling us how to remedy transgression of the lav, and such a lav is not liable for malkos.] *Rabbah bar bar Chanah amar Rabbi Yochanan: An eseh that precedes the lav*¤, does not make it a lav hanitak l’eseh, and *carries a malkos penalty.*¤It is written earlier in the possuk. This follows the explanation of *Ritva* (23.1). For *Rashi’s explanation,* see separate audio. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
772
*22.5 Makkos Daf 14 B (11 lines Up)*
*22.5 Makkos Daf 14 B (11 lines Up)*
May 21, 2020
7:07:39
*22.5 Makkos Daf 14 B (11 lines Up)*Today’s learning sponsored as a zechus for the speedy recovery of Rochel bas ReizelSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTUAccording to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.He also learns an azhara for a tamei who touches kodesh from the wording of the possuk. *Summary**Challenge:* Doesn’t Reish Lakish derive a different law from the possuk “She must not touch kodesh ”? Doesn’t he learn that a tamei is forbidden from *eating unprocessed kodesh * ( zrikah was not yet done) from here?*We Learned: If a tamei ate unprocessed kodesh: **Reish Lakish:* He is liable for malkos. *“She must not touch kodesh” * does not differentiate whether it was processed or not.*Rabbi Yochanan:* There is *no malkos * penalty. The lav against eating kodesh is derived from a gezeirah shaveh (22.3) from the word tumaso which is written in connection with kareis . Since kareis is only Resolution: The possuk says *“she must not touch ‘any (kol)’ kodesh ”.* The word any teaches that even unprocessed kodesh is forbidden. [At this point the Rov learned a Tosafos which discusses yesterday’s kevius, click here to listen to the Shiur with Tosafos] http://chilp.it/3299e31 See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
773
*22.4 Makkos Daf 14 B (16 lines Up)*
*22.4 Makkos Daf 14 B (16 lines Up)*
May 20, 2020
5:14:35
*22.4 Makkos Daf 14 B (16 lines Up)*Today's learning sponsored by *Moshe Horowitz* In honor of *the hardworking author of the summaries*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=According to Reish Lakish, the azhara for an individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah is from “She must not touch kodesh [nor enter the mikdash ]”.Rabbi Yochanan argued; “Kodesh” in that possuk refers to terumah. *Summary**Challenge:* Does Reish Lakish derive the lav prohibiting eating kodesh from the possuk “She must not touch kodesh ”? Doesn’t he learn the lav prohibiting a tamei from *touching kodesh * from here?*We Learned: If a tamei touched kodesh **Reish Lakish:* He is liable for * malkos. **Rabbi Yochanan:* There is *no malkos * penalty.*Reish Lakish:* He is liable for malkos, as the verse states; *“She must not touch kodesh”. **Rabbi Yochanan:* There is no malkos penalty; that possuk refers to terumah. *Resolution:* The wording of the verse *explicitly mentions touching,* so that is our azhara. However, *the possuk continues with the law prohibiting entry* to the mikdash which implies an act of kareis. Touching kodesh is not known to be an act of kareis, only eating kodesh, so *the hekesh teaches us the lav prohibiting eating kodesh. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
774
*22.3 Makkos Daf 14 B (1 line before spreads)*
*22.3 Makkos Daf 14 B (1 line before spreads)*
May 19, 2020
19:04:59
*22.3 Makkos Daf 14 B (1 line before spreads)*Where is the azhara for An individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah ?*Summary**Reish Lakish:* From the possuk “She [a woman who is tamei because of childbirth] *must not touch kodesh”.**Rabbi Yochanan: From the Beraisa taught by Bardela.**Bardela:* Regarding one who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah, there’s an onesh and an azhara (22.2). So we learn it by a * gezeirah shaveh .**Question:* Reish Lakish doesn’t give Rabbi Yochanan’s answer because *he never learned that gezeirah shaveh * [a gezeirah shaveh must be learned by tradition]. *Why doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan answer like Reish Lakish?**Answer:* “Kodesh” in that possuk *refers to terumah. **Question:* How does Reish Lakish *learn that law?**Answer:* From the possuk “A tamei from the seed of Aharon should not touch kodesh”. *Since the possuk specifies Aharon’s seed, we understand that it refers to terumah. **Question: Why doesn’t Rabbi Yochanan answer like Reish Lakish?**Answer:* One possuk *prohibits touching terumah * and one possuk prohibits *eating *terumah.** See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
775
*22.2 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Dn)*
*22.2 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Dn)*
May 18, 2020
17:53:43
*22.2 Makkos Daf 14 B (2 lines Dn)**Sponsor a day's learning* (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=The Chachomim learn from the words “his sister” that relations with a full sister is a punishable crime.Rabbi Yitzchok learns this from the first time the words “his sister” are mentioned.The Chachomim apply this possuk to the laws of mefatem and sach, [to give each lav the penalty of kareis ].*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that although only one kareis is mentioned for both mefatem and sach, each one is punishable in its own right?*Answer 1:* From the principle taught by Rabbi Elazar amar Rabbi Hoshaya.*Rabbi Elazar amar Rabbi Hoshaya:* Wherever you encounter *multiple lavin and only one kareis, they are each liable for a korban. **Answer 2:* He disagrees with Rabbi Elazar. He learns it from the possuk “V’ish asher yishkav es isha davah” (The issur of niddah. This verse is superfluous, see 21.4, thus it can be applied using the principle of im ein inyan [22.1].)*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from this verse?**Answer:* They derive the law of Rabbi Yochanan from here.*Rabbi Yochanan* in the name of *Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai:* A woman is only tamei if her issue (davah) comes through the ervah [if it came out through a caesarean cut, she would not be tamei], as the possuk states “V’ish asher yishkav es isha davah … ervasah”. (20.2) *1. An individual who consumed kodesh while in a state of tumah. 2. One who entered the mikdash in a state of tumah.**Question:* For 1, we have an onesh [Es mishkan Hashem timei v’nichresa] and an azhara (5.6) [V’lo yitamu es machaneihem]. For 2 we have an onesh [V’hanefesh asher tochal basar mizevach hashlamim asher laHashem v’tumaso alav, v’nichresa], but *where is the azhara? * [At this point the Rov learned a Rashi, See separate audio to listen to the Shiur with Rashi] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
776
*22.1 Makkos Daf 14 A (2 lines Up)*
*22.1 Makkos Daf 14 A (2 lines Up)*
May 17, 2020
14:32:13
*22.1 Makkos Daf 14 A (2 lines Up)*The Chachomim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.Rabbi Yitzchok maintained that the verse teaches that where there is kareis , there is only kareis and no malkos . He learns the above law about sister-prohibitions from the extra words “his sister”The Chachomim learn from here that relations with a full sister is a punishable crime [and the necessity of this verse teaches that we do not punish based on logic].*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that a full sister is punished?*Answer 1: From the lav * written about “a sister”, this must include a full sister.*Answer 2: The word “his sister”* is repeated “His sister, daughter of his father, or his sister, daughter of her mother”, this word is superfluous, because a daughter of a parent is obviously his sister; it thus teaches that the law applies to a full sister as well.*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from “his sister”?**Answer:* They apply this possuk to *the laws of mefatem and sach, * [to give each lav the penalty of kareis ]. Since there is a superfluous word here regarding kareis, we apply it to another kareis law using the principle of im ein inyan. [Here we have many lavin and only one kareis , yet here we are taught (21.4) that each bears its own penalty. The extra words here teach that this principle should be extended to other similar cases where there are several lavin and one punishment]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
777
*21.6 Makkos Daf 14 A (6 lines Up)*
*21.6 Makkos Daf 14 A (6 lines Up)*
May 15, 2020
8:15:05
*21.6 Makkos Daf 14 A (6 lines Up)*The Chachomim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.Rabbi Yitzchok maintained that the verse is not necessary for that (it teaches that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos ) since it can be inferred from the case of five niddos. The Chachomim argued that the cases cannot be compared.*Summary**Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok's defend his argument?**Answer:* He does not. Instead he learns it from the second time the verse mentions *“his sister”* [unnecessarily].*Question: What do the Chachomim learn from “his sister”?**Answer:* The Torah discusses only a half-sister [from either the father or mother], this repetition teaches that even a full sister is punishable. Although we would know this by logic, *We do not punish based on logic,* rather we need the passuk to state it explicitly (7.3).*Question: How does Rabbi Yitzchok learn this law* that a full sister is punished?*Answer:* From the extra lav written about a sister. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
778
*21.5 Makkos Daf 14 A (19 lines Up)*
*21.5 Makkos Daf 14 A (19 lines Up)*
May 14, 2020
59:26
*21.5 Makkos Daf 14 A (19 lines Up)*Rabbi Yitzchok: The Torah specifies kareis regarding a sister to teach that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos.The Chachamim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister emphasizes that all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment.However they agree with Rabbi Yitzchok that actually, this is taught by the verse “a woman who is a niddah”. They explain the previous specification as discussing a hypothetical case of “a wicked man, son of a wicked man” where one woman is actually three types of sister-prohibitions; the Torah specifies that there are three liabilities for such a case.*Summary**Question: What is Rabbi Yitzchok's source* for the law of *a wicked man, son of a wicked man?**Answer:* From derivative logic (kal vachomer). *Beraisa:**Rabbi Akiva: I asked Rabban Gamliel and Rabbi Yehoshua* [when they went to the meat market of Iamum, to buy meat for the wedding feast of Rabban Gamliel’s son (Rabban Gamliel was the nasi and could certainly have sent his servants, but he wished to fulfill the mitzvah himself)], if one has intimate relations with *his sister who is also his father’s sister and his mother’s sister* - Do we say that since it’s only one woman, he brings only one korban, or *is he guilty on three counts?**They replied:* We never heard of something like this, but we heard something similar. “If one is with *five niddos* [they were all his wives] without discovering that he did an aveirah, he is *liable on five counts.* [If one ate cheilev five times without discovering his aveirah, he is only liable for one chatas, but here, because it is five different persons, he is liable five times].” *We can now infer the answer* to your question. If for niddah , which is only one sin, one can be found guilty five times, *surely one can be guilty three times* in our case, where it is actually *three sins specified by the Torah.**The others* (Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva): *The logic is refuted.*The case of niddah deals with *five persons, while our case deals with only one.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
779
*21.4 Makkos Daf 14 A (9 lines Dn)*
*21.4 Makkos Daf 14 A (9 lines Dn)*
May 13, 2020
18:58:33
*21.4 Makkos Daf 14 A (9 lines Dn)*Rabbi Yitzchok: The Torah specifies kareis regarding a sister to teach that where there is kareis, there is only kareis and no malkos.The Chachamim (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain that the Torah’s specification of kareis regarding a sister emphasizes that all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment*Summary**Question:* What is Rabbi Yitzchok's source for the law that each lav of krisus bears a unique liability?*Answer:* From the verse “Don’t get intimate with ‘a woman’ who is a niddah”. This teaches that *each woman* is another liability (the possuk could have left out the words a woman, it is obvious that we’re talking about a woman).*Question: Do the Chachomim object* to this source?*Answer: They actually agree.**Question:* So, *how do the Chachomim explain* the Torah’s specifying kareis regarding a sister?*Answer:* The specification emphasizes that all types of sisters *(a sister, a father’s sister, and a mother’s sister)* bear their own punishment.*Challenge: That’s obvious!* They’re different people, and the Torah specifies all of them!*Resolution:* The specification teaches that if *all three happen to be one person,* he must bring three korbanos. This is possible in *the case of a wicked man, son of a wicked man* [A begat two daughters (C&D) from his mother, then he begat a son (B) from one of his daughters/sisters (C). When B has relations with D he is having relations with his sister (father’s daughter) who is his father’s sister (from the same mother) and his mother’s sister (from the same father)]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
780
The Rich Lady from Pressburg
The Rich Lady from Pressburg
May 12, 2020
5:06:14
We hope you are enjoying and gaining from this holy podcast! Please sponsor a podcast in honor of a loved one or be a monthly supporter. Just click: www.DailyHolyStory.com See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
781
*21.3 Makkos Daf 13 B (Bottom line)*
*21.3 Makkos Daf 13 B (Bottom line)*
May 12, 2020
2:21:50
*21.3 Makkos Daf 13 B (Bottom line)*According to Rabbi Akiva malkos is applicable where the Torah warns about kareis , because kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva (20.3). Subsequently there was a long discussion about Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning.*Summary**Ravina:* The reason Rabbi Akiva administers malkos where there is kerisus is *indeed because kerisus is administered by the heavenly court* who can be appeased by teshuva. The argument against this (20.5) was that perhaps he will not do teshuva, still, *since we’re not certain* that he will receive additional punishment, we may administer malkos. *[20.3] Rabbi Yitzchok:* No capital crimes are liable for malkos. *Even kerisus -level prohibitions are not liable for malkos. *Forbidden relations with *a sister was part of the general rule* of all the close relatives with whom intimate relations are punishable by kerisus. *And yet the Torah specifies* that forbidden relations with a sister is a kerisus liability; this teaches that it [and all others in the rule] is punishable *only by kareis and not malkos. **Question:* How do *the Chachamim* (Rabbi Yishamel and Rabbi Akiva) explain the Torah’s specifying kareis regarding a sister?*Answer:* The specification emphasizes that *all chayvei kerisus have their own punishment* [if one person had relations b’shogeig with three different arayos, he must bring three korbanos].*Rabbi Yochanan:* If he transgressed all the arayos without knowing that it’s problematic [he was a liberal, and then he became a baal teshuva], *he must bring a korban for each transgression.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
782
*21.2 Makkos Daf 13 B (4 lines Up)*
*21.2 Makkos Daf 13 B (4 lines Up)*
May 11, 2020
7:11:25
*21.2 Makkos Daf 13 B (4 lines Up)**Today’s Learning sponsored**לע”נ אמי מורתי רבקה חיה בת ר’ צבי יעקב ע”ה*יה”ר שלימוד התורה דרבים ביום השלשים יהא לזכות לנשמתהSponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://www.flipcause.com/secure/cause pdetails/ODUwOTU=According to Rabbi Akiva malkos is applicable where the Torah warns about kareis, because the presence of a lav indicates a liability of malkos. The lav is not necessary for kareis since Pesach and Milah are punishable by kareis without a lav. *Summary**Challenge:* Perhaps the lav causes a korban liability (in the event of a shogeig transgression of kerisus )? Indeed, there is no korban for missing Pesach or Milah!*Resolution:* All kerisus bear korban liability, because they are *modeled after the lav of Avodah Zarah,* the prototype of capital transgressions.*Pesach and Milah* are different from Avodah Zarah since Avodah Zarah is shev v’al taaseh (a prohibition) while they are * kum v’asei * (commandments).Since the lav is not necessary for korban, it brings a liability of malkos. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
783
*21.1 Makkos Daf 13 B (10 lines Up)*
*21.1 Makkos Daf 13 B (10 lines Up)*
May 10, 2020
23:44:59
*21.1 Makkos Daf 13 B (10 lines Up)*Rabbi Yishmael: There is malkos even for chayvei misah. Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Rabbi Yishmael holds that every lav is punishable by malkos and although there is only one penalty for each act of wickedness, malkos and misah are considered one punishment.According to Rabbi Akiva malkos and misah or kareis are considered two penalties, yet there are pesukim that teach that there is malkos in addition to kareis. *Summary**Rava:* No one holds that malkos is given in addition to misah. The debate between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva is only in a case where misah cannot be administered because there was no hasra’ah for capital punishment.The witnesses *only warned the criminal that his crime is punishable by malkos. * According to *Rabbi Yishmael,* when the Torah warns about misah, * malkos is included. Rabbi Akiva* holds that if the Torah warns about misah, * malkos is not applicable.**Challenge:* According to Rabbi Akiva, *why is malkos applicable* where the Torah warns about * kareis? **Rav Mordechai to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagronia* explained it thus in the name of *Rava:* In order to give kareis, a lav is not necessary, as in the case of *Pesach and Milah,* so the presence of a lav *indicates a liability of malkos .* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
784
*20.6 Makkos Daf 13 B (9 lines before spreads)*
*20.6 Makkos Daf 13 B (9 lines before spreads)*
May 8, 2020
16:56:28
*20.6 Makkos Daf 13 B (9 lines before spreads)**Today’s Learning sponsored by Chaim Markowitz in honor of RSG and our siyum Masechta Bechoros, may we finish many masechtos together!*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Rabbi Abahu: The Torah specifically indicates that chayvei krisus receive malkos. Regarding kerisus we find the word “l’einei” and regarding malkos we find the word “l’einecha”. *Summary**Rabbi Abba bar Mammal: Regarding chayvei misah we also find a similar word, “mei’eini”? **Response:* “l’einei” only differs from “l’einecha” in its ending, but *“ mei’eini ” differs* both in the beginning and the end, and cannot be compared.*Challenge: Why should it matter?**Tanna D’bei Rabbi Yishmael:* “The kohen shall return” and “The kohen shall come” *refer to the same kohen, even though completely different words are used.* (Words do not need to be precisely the same for them to be compared as long as they convey the same idea).*Additional Challenge:* “Mei’eini” only differs from “l’einei” in its beginning, so * misah can be compared to kerisus which is compared to malkos? *The challenge was accepted by *Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzchok* and he answered: The teaching that “There is *only one penalty* for each act of wickedness” is speaking of *penalties administered by Beis Din.* Since kerisus is not administered by Beis Din, they may give malkos. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
785
*20.5 Makkos Daf 13 B (21 lines Dn)*
*20.5 Makkos Daf 13 B (21 lines Dn)*
May 7, 2020
1:09:32
*20.5 Makkos Daf 13 B (21 lines Dn)*Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. Since kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva, there is a possibility that the crime won’t be punished at all, so we give malkos . However in a regular misah case, since teshuva will not help in an earthly court of law, one punishment, misah, is enough.*Summary**Question:* What is *Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning?**Answer:* The possuk states “He is penalized according to his act of wickedness”. There is only *one penalty for each act of wickedness.**Question: What about Rabbi Yishmael?* (20.3: Even one who is executed is liable for malkos ) Doesn’t he agree that a single act can only incur one penalty?*Answer: Misah and malkos are not two penalties,* they are both forms of corporal punishment and the malkos is viewed as the first step in the process of executing the criminal.*Challenge: How can Rabbi Akiva give malkos for a chayav kareis ? Perhaps he will not do teshuva * and will end up receiving two punishments for one act?*Rabbi Abahu: The Torah specifically indicates that chayvei krisus receive malkos. *Regarding kerisus we find the word *“l’einei”* and regarding malkos we find the word *“l’einecha”.* [Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning of teshuva is merely a taama dikra, Rabbi Abahu provides the legal underpinnings]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
786
*20.3 Makkos Daf 13 A (5 lines Up)*
*20.3 Makkos Daf 13 A (5 lines Up)*
May 5, 2020
19:15:06
*20.3 Makkos Daf 13 A (5 lines Up)*As we begin a new perek, we wish to remind our subscribers that several talmidim of the Rov zatzal have made themselves available to answer questions. If you have any difficulty please don’t hesitate to contact us by whatsapp or email.*Summary**Mishna* continued:How much tevel grain must one eat in order to be liable?*Rabbi Shimon: Any amount.**Chachomim: A kezayis. **Rabbi Shimon to the Chachomim:* “Wouldn’t you agree that *one is liable for eating an ant, even though it’s very small?”**Chachomim: One ant is a biryah * [a complete creation].*Rabbi Shimon: Even one kernel is a biryah* [if you put it into the ground you can reap a full harvest from that one kernel of grain - it is a complete creation]. *Gemara:**This mishna mentions that kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. * However misah -level prohibitions are not mentioned as being liable. *This is in accordance with Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.**Beraisa:**Rabbi Yishmael: Both* kerisus -level prohibitions and misah -level prohibitions*are liable for malkos. * [The current understanding of this opinion is that before one is put to death by Beis Din, he receives malkos, however see 21.1]. *Rabbi Akiva: Only kerisus -level prohibitions are liable for malkos. * Since kerisus is administered by the heavenly court who can be appeased by teshuva, there is a possibility that the crime won’t be punished at all, so we give malkos . However in a regular misah case, *since teshuva will not help in an earthly court of law, one punishment, misah, is enough.* [Even if he ran away and became an old Rosh Yeshiva, his sin is not pardoned and he must be put to death when discovered]. *Rabbi Yitzchok: Even kerisus -level prohibitions are not liable for malkos. * [One of the principles of determining Torah Law is דבר שהיה בכלל ויצא מן הכלל ללמד, לא ללמד על עצמו יצא אלא ללמד על הכלל כולו יצא “Anything that was included in a general rule, but was specified by the Torah, teaches something specific across the entire rule”] Forbidden relations with *a sister was part of the general rule* of all the close relatives with whom intimate relations are punishable by kerisus. *And yet the Torah specifies* that forbidden relations with a sister is a kerisus liability; this teaches that it [and all others in the rule] is punishable *only by kareis and not malkos. * See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
787
*20.2 Makkos Daf 13 A (15 lines Up)*
*20.2 Makkos Daf 13 A (15 lines Up)*
May 4, 2020
8:44:10
*20.2 Makkos Daf 13 A (15 lines Up)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary**Mishna:*These are liable for malkos: One who has relations with his sister - his father’s sister - his mother’s sister - his brother’s wife - his father’s brother’s wife - or a niddah. [These are all punishable by kareis; the mishna is teaching that they receive malkos as well]. A kohen gadol who marries a widow - any kohen who marries a divorcee or one who had chalitza. [These are enumerated since they are not considered sins for all Jews, still they are punishable. (A kohen who marries a chalutza is actually only punishable by malkos d’rabbanan)]. A marriage between a mamzer or a nasin and a Yisroel [It is not clear why this sin was singled out for mention in the mishna]. If a kohen gadol marries a woman who was both, widowed and divorced - he is liable for malkos twice. If any kohen marries a woman who was divorced and had chalitza, he is only liable once [because a chalutza is only a rabbinic prohibition]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
788
*20.1 Makkos Daf 13 A (14 lines Dn)*
*20.1 Makkos Daf 13 A (14 lines Dn)*
May 3, 2020
20:17:14
*20.1 Makkos Daf 13 A (14 lines Dn)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:* https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Rabbi Meir: The murderer would be reinstated to his position (if he was a dayan or he held some other office) after being released from the ir miklat. Rabbi Yehuda: He is not reinstated.*Summary**Beraisa:*“He [the Hebrew slave at yovel ] shall return to his family, and to the possession of his fathers he shall return”.*Rabbi Yehuda: He returns only to his family but not to a position* which he inherited from his father [authority positions are generally inheritances, if the son is worthy he takes his father’s place. If the position is not inherited, he is certainly not reinstated]. *Rabbi Meir: His former position is reinstated* as it states “and to the possession of his fathers he shall return”, *this includes positions of authority.*The possuk repeats *“he shall return”,* to teach that *the same applies to galus * of a murderer. As in the *Beraisa:*“The murderer *shall return* to the land of his inheritance”.*Rabbi Yehuda:* He returns *only to inherited land,* but not to any positions he held before galus. *Rabbi Meir: He returns to his inheritance as well, since the possuk uses the words “shall return”* as in the case of the Hebrew slave. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
789
*19.6 Makkos Daf 12 B (4 lines Up)*
*19.6 Makkos Daf 12 B (4 lines Up)*
May 1, 2020
2:36:10
*19.6 Makkos Daf 12 B (4 lines Up)**Summary**Mishna:**{Similarly,} a murderer should not accept honor* from the people of the ir miklat , *he must declare “I am a murderer”. If they persist he may accept the honor.* As it states “This is the word of the murderer”. (The mishna begins with the word “similarly” because our mishna is similar to the mishna in 14.2 which also learns a din from the same possuk. However some omit this word.) *Rabbi Yehuda: The murderers would pay rent* to the levi’im (who resided in these cities).*Rabbi Meir: They would not pay rent.**Rabbi Meir: The murderer would be reinstated to his position* (if he was a dayan or he held some other office) after being released from the ir miklat. *Rabbi Yehuda: He is not reinstated.**Gemara:**Rav Kahana:* Only with regard to the six primary sanctuary cities regarding which the Torah states lachem , Rabbi Meir holds that lachem means it has to be provided rent free.However in the forty two cities of the levi'im (which also provided asylum) Rabbi Meir agrees that rent had to be paid.*Rava* to Rav Kahana: Lachem certainly entitles the murderer to live rent free. So *regarding the six primary cities, Rabbi Yehuda agrees* that rent need not be paid.They only debate whether *the additional forty two* were added on to include all the benefits of the six cities. *Rabbi Yehuda holds* that while the six are primarily for sanctuary, *the forty two are primarily for levi’im and rent must be paid to them.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
790
*19.5 Makkos Daf 12 B (11 lines Up)*
*19.5 Makkos Daf 12 B (11 lines Up)*
Apr 30, 2020
2:34:25
*19.5 Makkos Daf 12 B (11 lines Up)**Summary**Gemara:**Beraisa:* [The following possuk was said at the beginning of the 40 year sojourn in the desert] “I will make a place for you [Moshe] where the murderer may find asylum” This teaches that *the cities were allocated while Moshe was yet alive* (14.2, 15.3).“A place” this teaches ‘like your place’ where Moshe resided *in the section of Levi.*“Where the murderer may find asylum” this teaches that if a murder would have happened *in the wilderness* they would have been able to find asylum in the section of Levi.*A levi * who murdered may find asylum *in a different city, or in his city* [in a different section, and he must be confined to that section. Tosafos ].*Rav Acha bar Ika:* We learn this from the possuk “He must dwell within his city of asylum”, sometimes he can find asylum *within the city where he previously found asylum.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
791
*19.4 Makkos Daf 12 B (14 lines Up)*
*19.4 Makkos Daf 12 B (14 lines Up)*
Apr 29, 2020
22:41:30
*19.4 Makkos Daf 12 B (14 lines Up)* Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. *Summary**Rav Ashi:* Generally speaking a tree’s location is decided only by its trunk, however, in the case of ir miklat *the foliage is also taken into account,* and as long as any part of the tree extends into the city limits, he cannot be killed in the other part of the tree.*Mishna:*A murderer who *killed while in the ir miklat is exiled to another area* within the city, and must remain within that limited area [up until now he could roam freely in the entire city and its techum, and now he is limited to a small section]. *A Levi who killed* [while he was living in a sanctuary city, since the cities of the levi’im (see 14.5) also provided asylum to murderers] *is exiled to a different city.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
792
*19.3 Makkos Daf 12 B (12 lines Dn)*
*19.3 Makkos Daf 12 B (12 lines Dn)*
Apr 28, 2020
23:32:27
*19.3 Makkos Daf 12 B (12 lines Dn)* Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. Rav Kahana explains that the second mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda of the beraisa while the first is the opinion of the chachomim. The gemara found it difficult to accept that Rabbi Yehuda differs so vastly with the Chachamim, and that he will hold that someone who is technically inside the sanctuary city may be killed just because the foliage of the tree where he is standing extends outside of the city limits. *Summary**Rabbah: Our mishna follows Rabbi Yehuda. However, the location of the foliage is not the single deciding factor* [as it may seem from a simple reading of the mishna]. Rather:▪A. If the foliage is within the city limits and the murderer is on the trunk outside the city, he may not be killed.▪B. If the foliage is outside the city limits and the murderer is on the trunk inside the city, he cannot be killed.▪C. If the foliage is outside the city limits and the murderer is on the foliage, he may be killed. *However the goeil hadam is not permitted to enter the city and ‘use the trunk as a ladder’ in order to kill him.* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
793
*19.2 Makkos Daf 12 B (2 lines Dn)*
*19.2 Makkos Daf 12 B (2 lines Dn)*
Apr 27, 2020
1:38:27
*19.2 Makkos Daf 12 B (2 lines Dn)**Today’s learning dedicated in honor of my dear wife Tziporah whose dedication enables my learning - Y.Z.*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50 Our mishna states that a tree’s location is decided by its foliage. In Maaser Sheini one mishna states the foliage is not taken into account, only the actual city boundaries. Another mishna there states that the foliage is a deciding factor. Rav Kahana explains that the second mishna follows the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda of the beraisa while the first is the opinion of the chachomim. *Summary**Challenge: It is possible that Rabbi Yehuda* only takes the location of the foliage into consideration, but *does not consider it to be the single decisive factor.**With regard to maaser there are two ways of being stringent* (18.6) 1. Outside the city it cannot be consumed. 2. Inside the city it cannot be redeemed.It is possible that in a case where the foliage is outside the city, Rabbi Yehuda holds that maaser cannot be consumed on the trunk which is inside the city. And in a case where the foliage is inside the city, Rabbi Yehuda holds that maaser cannot be redeemed on the trunk which is outside the city.*However, with regard to Ir Miklat, * 1. Outside the city he may be killed. 2. Inside the city it is an act of murder to kill him. *Can we say that* if the foliage is outside the city and he is inside, *he may be killed and it is not considered an act of murder?!* He is inside the ir miklat ! [This question was not asked on our mishna, because our mishna records an accepted halacha. But since there is a dissenting view in maaser sheini, it is difficult to believe that the viewpoints of Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim would differ so vastly] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
794
*19.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (4 lines Up)*
*19.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (4 lines Up)*
Apr 26, 2020
13:21
*19.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (4 lines Up)*We learned in the mishna that if someone stands under a tree which extends outside of the ir miklat’s city limits, he may be considered as if he is standing outside, although in reality he is within the limits. However regarding maaser sheini we learn that it all depends on the walls of Jerusalem.*Summary**Resolution: The laws of maaser sheini cannot be compared to arei miklat. * With regard to maaser we’re concerned only with the ‘boundary’. Whereas with regard to arei miklat *we’re concerned with ‘sheltering’* the murderer.He can find shelter in the tree’s foliage but not on its trunk.*Challenge: We can find a challenge from maaser sheini! **Mishna:* The boundary of Yerushalayim depends on *the tree’s foliage,* just like the arei miklat. *Rav Kahana: it is a dispute among tannaim; * Rabbi Yehuda and the Chachamim.*Beraisa: Rabbi Yehuda:* A cave’s location (with regard to maaser sheini ) is decided by *its entrance.* A tree’s location is decided by *its foliage.* [Although the mishna in maaser sheini (18.6) said: “we do not consider the trunk or the foliage”, that is the opinion of the Chachamim, Rabbi Yehuda disagrees]. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
795
*18.6 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines Up)*
*18.6 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines Up)*
Apr 24, 2020
21:13:21
*18.6 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines Up)*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Today’s learning sponsored by P.W. in honor of Sruly and Hindy Knopfler**Summary**Mishna:* If a tree stands inside the city limits [the trunk] and its foliage [the whole body of the tree] extends outside, or vice versa, and the murderer is under *the foliage; the entire tree’s location is determined by its foliage.* [Thus if one is sitting on the trunk, within the city limits, he can be put to death, because the foliage extends outside of the city limits.] *Gemara:* Maaser Sheini must be eaten inside the walls of Yerushalayim. As long as one has not yet entered the city, the maaser sheini can be redeemed for money. *Challenge:**Mishna:* If a tree stands inside the city walls and its foliage extends outside, or vice versa, the wall is the boundary and we do not consider the trunk or the foliage. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
796
*18.5 Makkos Daf 12 A (19 lines Up)*
*18.5 Makkos Daf 12 A (19 lines Up)*
Apr 23, 2020
6:55:28
*18.5 Makkos Daf 12 A (19 lines Up)**Summary**Beraisa 1:* “If the murderer goes out and exits ( yatzo yeitzei ) his sanctuary city [he may be killed]”. The double wording yatzo yeitzei teaches that this law applies whether he left the city with intent or without.*Beraisa 2:* If the murderer exits his sanctuary city intentionally, he may be killed. However if he left in error, he may return safely.*Question:* How are these two beraisas resolved?*Answer: Beraisa 2 believes “The Torah speaks in the language of men”* not every turn of phrase has halachic ramifications, while Beraisa 1 believes “The Torah does not speak in the language of men” and every word must be analyzed.*Abayye:* Beraisa 2 is more logical because *leaving a city unintentionally cannot be worse than killing unintentionally.* If one who murdered unintentionally does not get killed, it cannot be that one who leaves a sanctuary city unintentionallydoes get killed.*Beraisa 1: A murderer’s son may take his father’s life* as the goeil hadam [if his father had killed his brother].*Beraisa 2:* A murderer’s son *may not act as the goeil hadam * against his father.*Suggestion:* Perhaps *Beraisa 1 is in accordance with the view of Rabbi Yosi Hagelili* (17.4, 18.4) [that the goeil hadam is obligated by the Torah to take the murderer’s life] and *Beraisa 2 follows Rabbi Akiva’s opinion.**Rebuttal:* Even according to Rabbi Yosi Hagelili *it wouldn’t be permissible for a son to take his father’s life,* as *Rabbah bar Rav Huna* said, and the same was taught in *Rabbi Yishmael’s Yeshiva: A son cannot be the shaliach beis din against his father* [even if the father is a murderer] except in the case of a meisis [one who persuades others to worship idols] as it states “Do not pity him or cover for him”.*Resolution* of the beraisas: “Son” in Beraisa 1 refers to a son. “Son” in Beraisa 2 *refers to a grandson.* If his grandfather killed his father, then he can be a goeil hadam against him. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
797
*18.4 Makkos Daf 12 A (15 lines After spreads)*
*18.4 Makkos Daf 12 A (15 lines After spreads)*
Apr 22, 2020
15:10:34
*18.4 Makkos Daf 12 A (15 lines After spreads)*Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by *Mark Weinman**In honor of my birthday, as a zechut for Clal Israel*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50Beraisa: “V’ratzach [can be translated ‘if he murdered’ or ‘he should murder’] goeil hadam” Rabbi Yosi Hagelili: This teaches that the goeil hadam has an obligation to kill the murderer and anyone else is not guilty for killing him. Rabbi Akiva: The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing him.*Summary**Question: What are the rationales* of Rabbi Yosi Hagelili and Rabbi Akiva?*Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* If Rabbi Akiva is correct, the possuk should have said “ im ratzach ”.*Rabbi Akiva:* If RabbiYosi Hagelili is correct, the possuk should have said “ yirtzach ”.*Mar Zutra bar Tuvia* quoting *Rav:* If the goeil hadam encounters the murderer outside of the city limits and kills him, *he is charged with murder.**Question:* This in accordance with *neither Rabbi Yosi Hagelili nor Rabbi Akiva?**Answer:* It is in accordance with the following beraisa.*Beraisa: Rabbi Eliezer:* “[The murderer shall not be killed] until he is judged by the Sanhedrin” this teaches that the goeil hadam cannot kill the murderer unless he is *pronounced guilty by the Sanhedrin.**Question:* What do Rabbi Yosi Hagelili and Rabbi Akiva *learn from this possuk ?**Answer:* It teaches the law of the following beraisa. *Beraisa: Rabbi Akiva:* A Sanhedrin that witnesses a murder may not execute *the murderer ‘until he is judged by a different Sanhedrin’.* [Since they saw too much, they may not recognize certain legal loopholes] See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
798
*18.3 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines After spreads)*
*18.3 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines After spreads)*
Apr 21, 2020
18:32:02
*18.3 Makkos Daf 12 A (9 lines After spreads)**27 Nissan - Yahrtzeit of the Rov ztz”l*Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by *Eliyahu Levy**In memory of Rav Avigdor ben Yisroel Hakohen Miller zatzal*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary*We learned in the mishna (17.4) that the techum of an ir miklat provides asylum just like the city.*Challenge: Beraisa:*“The murderer must dwell in the city” This teaches that he must dwell within the city proper and *not in the techum. **Abayye: Our mishna discusses asylum.* Even the techum provides asylum. *The beraisa 0 discusses dwelling.* The murderer’s dwelling must be within the city proper.*Challenge:* Why is the law of the beraisa necessary? It is obvious that *the dwelling must be within the city proper.*The law is: fields cannot be changed to suburbs, nor can suburbs become a city or the city a suburb.[If one dwells in the techum of the city he is turning a suburb into a city!]*Rav Sheishes:* The beraisa can be referring to someone who wishes *to dwell in a cave.* [By living in a cave he is not changing the techum into a city].We learned in the mishna (17.4) that *If a murderer leaves the sanctuary city* and its techum and is discovered by the goeil hadam: *Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* The goeil hadam has a mitzvah to kill him. Anyone may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder).*Rabbi Akiva:* The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing him.*Beraisa:* “V’ratzach [can be translated ‘if he murdered’ or ‘he should murder’] goeil hadam” *Rabbi Yosi Hagelili:* This teaches that the goeil hadam has an obligation to kill the murderer and anyone else is not guilty for killing him. *Rabbi Akiva:* The goeil hadam may kill the murderer (and will not be liable for murder). Anyone else is liable for murder for killing him. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
799
*18.2 Makkos Daf 12 A (13 lines Dn)*
*18.2 Makkos Daf 12 A (13 lines Dn)*
Apr 20, 2020
8:32:43
*18.2 Makkos Daf 12 A (13 lines Dn)**Today's Torah Learning is Sponsored by Moshe L.**May Today’s Torah Learning be L'zchus refuah shleima of all the cholim of, and affected by, Covid-19*Sponsor a day's learning (thousands of minutes!) for only $50 *click here:*https://secure.cardknox.com/torasavigdor?xDescription=GemaraProjectDay&xamount=50*Summary**The following gemara contains hints to secrets of Torah. The gemara clothes them in an allegorical story.**Reish Lakish: The angel of Rome is destined to make three errors,* these are hinted at in the verse “Who is this One coming from Edom, with [blood] stained clothing, as one who has tread wine [batzrah]”. [This refers to Hashem returning from slaughtering the angel of Edom/Rome]. *1.*He will escape to Batzrah thinking that it will provide asylum for him, but *Betzer is a sanctuary city, not Batzrah.**2.*A sanctuary city provides asylum *only for those who killed b’shogeig, * yet Edom persecuted us b’meizid. *3.* A sanctuary city provides asylum *only for humans,* not angels.*Rabbi Avahu: An ir miklat is not a place for cemeteries* as it states: “For all their animals and livestock” - it was given *for live people,* not dead ones.*Challenge:* We learned (17.4) that *a murderer must be buried there?**Resolution: A murderer has a special exception from the Torah that he is buried there until the death of the kohen gadol* See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate
800
*18.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (Top line)*
*18.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (Top line)*
Apr 19, 2020
22:35:30
*18.1 Makkos Daf 12 A (Top line)**Summary* We have reproduced the last summary in full since today’s learning is a direct follow up *If the kohen gadol is disqualified from kehunah * [he was found to be a challal. If he was found to be a Yisroel there is no question that it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all]: It is a dispute between *Rabbi Ami* and *Rabbi Yitzchok Nafcha.* According to one; it’s like *the kehuna died* and the murderers go free. According to the other, *the kehuna is cancelled* and it is considered as if there was no kohen gadol at all.*Question: Is this dispute the same* as that of Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua?*Mishna:* If a kohen gadol was bringing korbanos and *he was discovered to be a challal: Rabbi Eliezer: All his previous korbanos are disqualified. Rabbi Yehoshua: They’re kosher.*It seems that the amora who posits that *the kehuna died is following Rabbi Yehoshua* and the amora who posits that *the kehuna is cancelled is following Rabbi Eliezer.**Answer: The disputes are not necessarily correlated.* While Rabbi Eliezer certainly is of the opinion that the kehuna is cancelled, *both Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yitzchok Nafcha can explain Rabbi Yehoshua’s position* in a way that matches up with their own.*Rabbi Yehoshua agrees* even with the position that ‘the kehuna is cancelled’. He only says that * korbanos brought by a challal will not be disqualified* because of the possuk regarding poeil yadav [the korbanos he brings] in which he *darshens* *the word cheilo to include challalim. * The Torah states that a murderer must be taken to be executed from near the mizbeach (from doing the avodah). However the gemara in Yuma teaches that while a kohen is actually on the mizbeach, he is not taken to be killed. Before his death, Dovid Hamelech commanded Shlomo to execute Yoav ben Tzeruya. Yoav fled into the ‘tent of Hashem’ and grabbed onto the corners of the mizbeach. But Shlomo had him executed anyway. *Rav Yehuda amar Rav:* Yoav made *two errors* at that time.*1.Only standing on the mizbeach* is protection against being executed, not holding its corners.*2.The mizbeach protects only when it is in its proper place,* but this tent of Hashem in Yerushalayim (Rashi emends the text of the gemara so it doesn’t read Shiloh) had the status of a bamah. *Abayye:* He made an *additional error.**The mizbeach * protects only kohanim in the midst of avodah, but Yoav was not a kohen. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information. This podcast has been graciously sponsored by JewishPodcasts.fm. There is much overhead to maintain this service so please help us continue our goal of helping Jewish lecturers become podcasters and support us with a donation: https://thechesedfund.com/jewishpodcasts/donate