Podcasts about karet

Sanhedrin 87 : Marc Chipkin : 2025-03-14 Israel is higher than all other lands. What kind of halachic disagreement qualifies for the rebellious elder. Karet violations resulting from various cases.

"Nie przypuszczam, żeby ktoś o nazwisku Nawrocki - a znam wielu porządnych i ciekawych ludzi w kraju o tym nazwisku - w najbliższym czasie był prezydentem" - powiedział w Popołudniowej rozmowie w RMF FM minister infrastruktury, wiceprezes PSL Dariusz Klimczak. "Mam nadzieję, że Polacy tym razem postawią na kogoś, kto będzie potrafił równoważyć w Polsce racje, które są zbyt spolaryzowane" - dodał. Pytany o to, czy Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz nie żałuje, że nie został premierem, odpowiedział: "Przychodziły do niego pielgrzymki. (...) Raz chcieli go zabrać lektyką, raz karetą, raz go chcieli na rękach nieść. Ale my wybraliśmy racjonalność".

10. decembrī Mazajā ģildē kopā ar Hermaņa Brauna fonda vadītāju, pianisti Innu Davidovu jaunā kamermūzikas programmā kopā muzicēs dziedātāja Ļubova Karetņikova. Šis gads viņai bijis spilgtu notikumu pilns. Pēc iekļūšanas Karalienes Elizabetes konkursa pusfināla viņa saņēmusi uzaicinājumu dziedāt Adīnas lomu Latvijas Nacionālās operas jauniestudējumā G. Doniceti operā "Mīlas dzēriens", bet rudenī izcīnija galveno balvu Victoria konkursā Debut Competition'24 Vācijā. Sarunā ar abām mūziķēm vispirms lūdzām atgādināt par viņu skatuviskās draudzības sākumu, kas saistīta ar Pētera Čaikovska dziesmu programmu, un gaidāmo koncertu, kurā iekļauta Franča Šūberta, Edvarda Grīga un Sergeja Rahmaņinova vokālā lirika. Ļubova Karetņikova: Dziedāt Šūbertu ir grūti, jo mūzika ir ļoti smalka, daudz teksta. Ir vajadzīga krāsu palete, lai būtu interesanti to darīt, īpaši dziedot Latvijā, kur ne visi saprot vācu valodu - tas arī būs izaicinājums. Pirms četriem gadiem bija mans pirmais solokoncerts un es tad arī dziedāju Šūbertu. Cilvēki teica: “O, mēs visu saprotam, kaut gan nezinām valodu”. Tas arī ir grūtākais. Vajag ļoti izjust gan mūziku, gan tekstu, jābūt patiesam. Es tomēr trīs gadus mācījos dziedāt kamermūziku, un tas ir kaut kas pavisam cits nekā opera. Innai arī šeit noteikti ir, ko piebilst, jo Šūberts ir atskaņots kopā ar ļoti daudziem. Inna Davidova: Ar basiem, tenoriem, soprāniem, mecosoprāniem… Ļoti daudz. Bet mani pirmie soļi bija saistīti ar Ilgu Tiknusi, kad vēl mācījos konservatorijā. Kā viņa dziedāja Šūbertu… Viņai bija tāda izjūta, tāda saprašana par katru vārdu, katru noti, tās smalkās ēniņas, kas nāk skaistajā, pozitīvajā kopējā bildē... Un, protams, Inta Villeruša, pie kuras tas viss notika kopā ar Ilgu Tiknusi, kurai nepalaida bez uzmanības garām nevienu teikumu, nevienu frāzi, nevienu pavērsienu, nevienu nokrāsu. Viss bija svarīgi, un tev bija tikai jāzina, kā Ļuba teica, šī krāsu palete - kā to izmantot, lai nezaudētu stila izjūtu, lai priekšnesums būtu dabisks, un vēl - būt šodienīgam, iedzīvinot mūziku, kas sarakstīta pirms 200 gadiem pilnīgi citos apstākļos, pilnīgi citā dzīves ritmā. Kā šodien pastāstīt cilvēkam, kuram, piemēram, vārds “sekss” ir zināms kopš 6 gadu vecuma, kā pastāstīt par Margarētu, kura par pirmo skūpstu runā tā, it kā tas būtu dzīves gals vai nāves sākums? Tur kopā ir gan filozofija, gan izjūtu smalkums, gan domas skaidrība. Tā skaidrība, kas piemīt gandrīz visām Šūberta dziesmām, lai arī cik tās nebūtu dramatiskas kā “Meža ķēniņš” vai kāda cita. Mūsu programma ir ļoti interesanta. Mēs šīm dziesmām izveidojām līnīju, ka tie ir ļoti dažādi sievietes tēli. Viņa alkst pēc mīlestības, viņa skumst par to, ka jaunība paiet pārāk ātri, viņa domā par mūžīgo mīlestību vai nodevību, viņa izmisumā grib tikt galā ar savu dzīvi. Tad seko trīs balādes, “Elenas dziesmas”, no kurām trešā ir “Ave Maria”, un ar to viss beidzas. Noslēgumā Inna Davidova ieskicē arī šī gada festivāla Winterfest aktualitātes, ko ievadīs šis koncerts, bet noslēgs Viktorijas Mullovas un Reiņa Zariņa uzstāšanās 15. janvārī Dzintaru Mazajā zālē.

Tinggalkan komentar dan berikan pendapatmu: https://open.firstory.me/user/clhkbe0z1049r01xob569atao/comments Powered by Firstory Hosting

Äääääntligen fredag. Vi startar avsnittet med ett roligt snack om mode, Sabri och Fabbes favoritplagg är på gång att bli inne igen. Sen ringer vi upp Jesper Ekstedt och får reda på om AIK kommer få rätt i sitt fall mot Meta. Gnaget har nämligen dragit företaget inför rätta efter att två Facebook-konton sålt falska kläder och accessoarer på plattformen. Robert Falck vill ta över efter Fredrik Reinfeldt som ordförande i Svff. Vi pratar med honom om hans egna kandidatur, vad han tycker om VAR och svensk fotboll. Sen undrar vi hur Hampus Skoglund mår. Hammarby försvararen blev knockad i matchen mot Gais och nu är han med oss via länk. Bajen har varvat upp och Skoglund är en viktig kugge i det väloljade maskineriet. Sabri ger sitt speltips innan det är dags för oss att ta tag i cirkusen kring ÖFK. Det är svårt att förstå att det laget vann mot Arsenal för sex år sedan. Nu hör vi vad Östersunds-postens sportchef Fredrik Sjölund har att säga om dramat. Det bästa sparar vi dock till sist när Axel får kalufsen fixad av fotbollsstjärnornas frisör Ibrahim ”Ibbe” Yousif. Han har klippt stjärnor som Alexander Isak, Jens Cajuste och Isak Hien. Idag kan han också lägga till Axel Insulander. Programledare: Axel Insulander¨ Panelen: Robin Berglund, Saga Fredriksson och Sabri Suvakci Länk till YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuPOsxFG-Q0

הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ יְהֹוָ֤ה ׀ אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ (ונשוב) [וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה] חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם׃ Take us back, O LORD, to Yourself,And let us come back;Renew our days as of old! https://www.sefaria.org/Lamentations.5.21 לְמִימֵ֨י אֲבֹֽתֵיכֶ֜ם סַרְתֶּ֤ם מֵֽחֻקַּי֙ וְלֹ֣א שְׁמַרְתֶּ֔ם שׁ֤וּבוּ אֵלַי֙ וְאָשׁ֣וּבָה אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם אָמַ֖ר יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וַאֲמַרְתֶּ֖ם בַּמֶּ֥ה נָשֽׁוּב׃ From the very days of your ancestors you have turned away from My laws and have not observed them. Turn back to Me, and I will turn back to you—said GOD of Hosts. But you ask, “How shall we turn back?” https://www.sefaria.org/Malachi.3.7 וְאָמַרְתָּ֣ אֲלֵהֶ֗ם כֹּ֤ה אָמַר֙ יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֔וֹת שׁ֣וּבוּ אֵלַ֔י נְאֻ֖ם יְהֹוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וְאָשׁ֣וּב אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם אָמַ֖ר יְהֹוָ֥ה צְבָאֽוֹת׃ Say to them further:Thus said GOD of Hosts: Turn back to me—says GOD of Hosts—and I will turn back to you—said GOD of Hosts. https://www.sefaria.org/Zechariah.1.3 Midrash Eicha Raba “Return us to You, Lord, and we will return; renew our days as of old” (Lamentations 5:21).“Return us to You, Lord, and we will return.” The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One blessed be He: ‘Master of the universe, it is incumbent upon You to return us.' He said to them: ‘It is incumbent upon you, as it is stated: “Return to Me and I will return to you, said the Lord” (Malachi 3:7).' Eikhah_Rabbah.5.21 . וְכַאֲשֶׁר יָשׁוּב הַמְקַצֵּר בָּהֶם בְּלִבּוֹ וּבִלְשׁוֹנוֹ וְיִשְׁתַּדֵּל לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם וְלֹא יִשְׁנֶה קִצּוּרוֹ בָּהֶם יִמְחֹל לוֹ הַבּוֹרֵא וְיִשְׁתַּוֶּה עִם הַצַּדִּיק אֲשֶׁר לֹא קִצֵּר בָּהֶם, וּבִכְמוֹ זֶה נֶאֱמַר הַשָּׁב מִן הַחֵטְא כְּמִי שֶׁלֹּא חָטָא וְאָמְרוּ רז״ל עָבַר עַל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ כָּרֵת וְעָשָׂה תְּשׁוּבָה אֵינוֹ זָז מִמְּקוֹמוֹ עַד שֶׁמּוֹחֲלִין לוֹ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (מלאכי ג) שׁוּבוּ אֵלַי וְאָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם. The explanation of the first case: That the lacking was in a positive commandment which does not carry the punishment of Karet (spiritual excision), such as tzitzit, lulav, sukka, or the like. When the person repents on them in his heart and in speech, and exerts himself to fulfill them, and does not repeat his neglect to do them, the Creator will forgive him, and he will be equal to the tzadik who never sinned in them. On such a penitent, it is said: 'one who repents from a sin is as if he never sinned', and our sages said of them: (Yoma 86a) 'one who transgressed a positive commandment which does not incur Karet (spiritual excision) and repented - he is forgiven right away, as written: 'return to Me and I will return to you' (Malachi 3:7)'. https://www.sefaria.org/Duties_of_the_Heart,_Seventh_Treatise_on_Repentance_8.2 Four motives in matter of repentance הָרִאשׁוֹן – הַשָּׁב מֵחֹזֶק הַכָּרָתוֹ אֶת אֱלֹהָיו. וְהוּא כְּמוֹ עֶבֶד הַבּוֹרֵחַ מֵאֲדֹנָיו, וּכְשֶׁחוֹשֵׁב בַּטּוֹב אֲשֶׁר גְּמָלוֹ, שֶׁמֵּרְצוֹנוֹ מְבַקֵּשׁ מְחִילָה מִמֶּנּוּ. וּבְכָמוֹהוּ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב (ירמיהו ד א): ״אִם תָּשׁוּב יִשְׂרָאֵל נְאֻם יְיָ אֵלַי תָּשׁוּב״ – קֹדֶם בּוֹא הָעֹנֶשׁ. וְאוֹמֵר (מלאכי ג ז): ״שׁוּבוּ אֵלַי וְאָשׁוּבָה אֲלֵיכֶם״. The first is when a man repents because he has come to recognize his God. And he is like a servant who flees from his master, but when he thinks of the good which his master has done to him, he returns to him of his own free will to seek forgiveness from him, and of such as him the Scripture says, 'If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, yea return unto Me' (Jer. 4:1). And further, 'Return unto Me, and I will return unto you' (Malachi 3:7). https://www.sefaria.org/Orchot_Tzadikim.26.62 Natan Nachman Moshe Katz הֲשִׁיבֵ֨נוּ יְהֹוָ֤ה ׀ אֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ (ונשוב) [וְֽנָשׁ֔וּבָה] חַדֵּ֥שׁ יָמֵ֖ינוּ כְּקֶֽדֶם׃ Take us back, O LORD, to Yourself,And let us come back;Renew our days as of old! https://www.sefaria.org/Lamentations.5.21 Tisha B'Av at night: The scroll of Lamentations. It is the emotions of the prophet Jeremiah's soul and his dirge that he took up about the destruction of the holy city of Jerusalem and the Temple. And it is especially about the sin that Jerusalem and his people sinned, which is what caused that awful destruction to happen. And while glancing with eyes full of tears, he instructs and shows the path that leads to repentance and towards the revival of Israel, to renew our days as of old (alluding to Lamentations 5:21). https://www.sefaria.org/Horeb.666.33 Kedushat Levi “Take us back, Lord, to You, and let us return, renew our days of old” (Eicha 5:21). To be specific, what does “[days] of old” mean? And one could explain this by way of the midrash: “And now, O Israel, what does the ETERNAL your God demand of you? (Deut 10:12) and it says in the Midrash: “Now is nothing other than Teshuvah” (Bereshit Rabbah 21:6) and it is explained thus, because each person from Israel is obligated to believe with full faith that at every moment we receive life from the Creator, Blessed Be, as it is explained, “Every [thing that] breathes praises — every single breath phrases Yah, ” (Bereshit Rabbah 11, Psalms 150:6) — that in every moment, the living wants to leave a person, the Holy One Blessed Be, sends to [that person] in ever moment, new life. Because of this, for Teshuvah to be effective for each person, for at the moment that [person] does Teshuvah, that person believes that they are created with life anew and with this God, may God be Blessed, with God's enormous mercy, does not remind them of their earlier sins. But, if, God forbid, they do not believe this, God forbid, the Teshvuah is not effective. This is the explanation of the Midrash, “Now is nothing other than Teshuvah,” since that [person] believes that they are made with life anew, the Teshuvah is effective for them. This is the interpretation of the verse, “Take us back, Lord, to You, and let us return,” and how is “renew our days of old?” this is what it says in the Gemara (Sanhedrin 98) [Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi encountered the Messiah and said] “When will the Master [Messiah] come?”...“Today, if you will listen to his voice” (Psalms 95:7). When you [act] according to this quality, each day [a person] will be made with life anew. https://www.sefaria.org/Kedushat_Levi,_Deuteronomy,_Megillat_Eicha.16 Avudraham And bring us back in complete repentance before You: is based on the verse, 'Bring us back, Adonai, to You, and let us come back; renew our days as of old.' (Lam. 5:21) In other words, if we begin to repent, You will help us to perform complete repentance before You. This is similar to the approach of the sages: 'If one comes to purity, they assist him.' לשונו. והיינו, כי ישראל שואלים שיפתח להם הקדוש ברוך הוא הרהורי תשובה, כענין הכרוז שמכריז שהם הרהורי תשובה הבאים, והקדוש ברוך הוא משיב כי צריך התשובה במעשה שיתחילו בה. https://www.sefaria.org/Reshit_Chokhmah,_Gate_of_Repentance_1.22

I Deskoherní inkvizice spolu někdy válčí a s kartami v rukou to méně bolí. Tomáš a Speedy si připravili TOP 5 svých nejoblíbenějších karet z historických válečných CDG, kterými velice rádi trápí své protivníky.   Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/deskoherniinkvizice/ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/deskoherniinkvizice/ YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCe_zS_5dUESy11yHo6mArtA Discord: https://discord.gg/jQwDqzp  Music: https://www.bensound.com/royalty-free-music

Dopravní podnik v Hradci Králové vypnul stávající e-shop pro dobíjení městských karet a nahradil ho novým systémem. Registraci v něm musí provést lidé, kteří chtějí využívat časové jízdenky a slevy. Změna by měla vést k rychlejšímu odbavování ve vozech městské hromadné dopravy.

PODHUB bersama Jarayut dan Boiyen

Češi patří mezi milovníky výkladu karet. Často jej preferují před kvalitní psychoterapií, což dokazují poslední sociologické průzkumy. V tomto díle podcastu se podíváme na výklad karet hned z několika úhlů pohledu a pokusíme s mým hostem Martinou Šimůnkovou poodkrýt skryté možnosti výkladových, terapeutických, rozvojových karet, ale také se zastavit u úskalí, co se může odehrát v lidské psychice při neprofesionálním výkladu karet. Je to rozbuškové téma, které se ale dotýká mnoha z nás. www.monikaur.cz youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@webitacemonikaurbanova1713 esenceslov.cz 

Americká krása #15 s Barborou Chaloupkovou a Jiřím Sobotou o primárkách, volebním souboji dvou nepopulárních prezidentů i možných zvratech

Nikolas Kara měl už od dětství sen, chtěl se stát kouzelníkem. Když pak jednou uviděl v televizi pořad Zlatá mříž a vystoupení Pavla Kožíška, měl jasno.

Nikolas Kara měl už od dětství sen, chtěl se stát kouzelníkem. Když pak jednou uviděl v televizi pořad Zlatá mříž a vystoupení Pavla Kožíška, měl jasno.Všechny díly podcastu Dobré dopoledne můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

ပညတ်တရားသည် ကျွန်ုပ်တို့ကို မကယ်တင်နိုင်သော်လည်း ကယ်တင်ခြင်းသို့ပို့ဆောင်သော လမ်းညွှန်ချက်ဖြစ်သည်။ ထို့အပြင် အပြစ်တရားသည် ထင်ရှားလိမ့်မည်။ သဘာဝအကြောင်းအရာ။ ဓမ္မသီချင်း။ တရားဒေသနာ။

Některé obchodní řetězce staví zákazníky před nové dilema. Část zboží prodávají za „normální“ ceny jen majitelům svých věrnostních karet. Zbytek to má i o polovic dražší. „Je to na hranici vydírání,“ říká ekonomka Jana Matesová.Nakupování v akcích je disciplína, ve které jsou mnozí Češi mistry. Zatímco starší generace umí chodit v letákových akcích, ta střední a mladší si oblíbila věrnostní aplikace a karty. Nejznámějším věrnostním programem v Česku je Tesco Clubcard. Svůj mají ale i  Billa, Penny, Lidl, Albert, Kaufland. A nezaostávají ani drogerie či lékárny.Češi využívají průměrně 12 různých věrnostních programů, každý desátý se upsal do více než dvaceti, ukázal průzkum výzkumné agentury Inconminde. Vlastnictví takové kartičky je totiž vstupenkou ke slevám v řádu i desítek procent. Kdo kartu nemá, platí cenu znatelně vyšší.Rýže dlouhozrnná pro věrné za 50, pro ostatní za 75. Mleté hovězí namarkuje běžný zákazník za 150 korun, ten s věrnostní kartou za 110. Kočičí žrádlo za 180 za plnou cenu, za 110 s věrnostní slevou. Na týdenním rodinném nákupu tak mohou slevy udělat několik stokorun, ukazuje srovnání cenovek z on-line obchodu řetězce Tesco, které aktuálně tuto strategii „dvojích cen“ praktikuje nejviditelněji.Věrným sleví, ostatním zdražíAle Tesco není samo, kdo se pokouší zákazníky získat skrze slevy jen pro klubisty. „Viděli jsme v létě minimálně dva další řetězce, které vyzkoušely třeba na týden, jestli by mohly své slevy takhle hluboce navázat jenom na karty,“ všímá si Jana Matesová v podcastu Ve vatě, kde bude nově další stálou expertkou.Oslovené nákupní řetězce si systém chválí. Ale na zářijové konferenci Asociace nákupních center z úst manažerky jedné retailové skupiny zaznělo, že se v Tescu údajně od zavedení nového systému Clubcard snížila návštěvnost o 20 až 30 %. A podle Jany Matesové zákazníky tak výrazné rozdíly v cenách pro klubisty a neklubisty naštvaly.„Lidé reagují racionálně. V Česku máme slavnou hlášku Šimka a Grossmanna ‚Nechci slevu zadarmo‘. A chytří klienti chápou, že tahle sleva je za vaše informace, ale taky za to, že všichni ostatní, kdo si Clubcard nepořídí, budou nakupovat přehnaně draze,“ myslí si ekonomka.Na zlevněné zboží pro držitele klubových karet, ať už těch plastových, nebo virtuálních v mobilu, doplácejí podle Jany Matesové klienti, kteří si kartu nepořídili. „Samozřejmě ten řetězec nebude prodávat pod cenou, to by vyráběl ztrátu. On si na těch ostatních zákaznících, kteří nemají klubovou kartu, nadělá všechen svůj zisk. Zatímco u těch hlubokých slev může jít trošku do ztráty, těm ostatním se ceny o to trošku víc zvýší.“Když chtějí datum narození, utíkejteV místech, kde je mezi řetězci konkurence, toto Matesová nevnímá jako problém. Řetězce se prostě snaží přetáhnout nové klienty a zavázat si ty stávající. Kdo nechce výměnou za slevy poskytnout své osobní údaje, jde příště prostě jinam. „Tam, kde je ale jen Tesco a široko daleko nikde není jiná varianta nákupu, tak je to zneužití tržní síly,“ domnívá se Matesová.Vysoké věrnostní slevy jsou často aplikovány i na základní potraviny a drogerii. „V současné ekonomické situaci spoustu lidí nutíte, ať vám svá data dají. Je to na hranici vydírání,“ má za to ekonomka. Ve slevách se prodá už 65 % zboží. Podle Matesové by bylo žádoucí podíl zlevněného zboží nějakým způsobem regulovat.Věrnostní kluby jsou pro obchodníky skvělým zdrojem informací o zákazníkovi. Zvlášť díky aplikacím dostanou takřka bezplatně dokonalý popis jeho nákupního chování. To je podle Matesové legitimní. Lidé by si ale měli podle ní dávat pozor, jaké informace o sobě obchodům poskytují.„Jméno, adresa jsou v pořádku. Pokud chtějí datum narození, běžte dál. Hrozí, že vaše informace přeprodávají třetím stranám,“ varuje Matesová. Jak vůbec funguje slevový systém? Na co si dát pozor? Je nakupování přes věrnostní kluby skutečně výhodné? Poslechněte si celý podcast nahoře v přehrávači.Poslechněte si celou epizodu. Ve vatě. Podcast novinářky Markéty Bidrmanové. Poslechněte si konkrétní rady investorů a odborníků na téma investic, inflace, úvěrů a hypoték. Finanční „kápézetka“ pro všechny, kterým nejsou peníze ukradené. Vychází každý čtvrtek. Poslouchejte na Seznam Zprávách, Podcasty.cz nebo ve všech podcastových aplikacích. V podcastu vysvětlujeme základní finanční pojmy a principy, nejde ale o investiční poradenství. O čem byste chtěli poslouchat příště? Co máme zlepšit? A co naopak určitě neměnit? Vaše připomínky, tipy i výtky uvítáme na adrese audio@sz.cz.

If an ill patient's condition on Yom Kippur is life-threatening, Heaven forbid, then he eats and drinks as usual without any restrictions. The Torah is more concerned about human life than about fasting on Yom Kippur, and thus a dangerously ill patient's top Halachic priority on Yom Kippur is his health. The Torah instructs, "Va'hai Bahem" – we are to live with the Torah, and not die as a result of Torah observance, and thus a dangerously ill patient eats and drinks on Yom Kippur without any Halachic restrictions whatsoever.This is not the case when dealing with a patient whose condition is not life-threatening, but who is nevertheless medically required to eat in order to protect his health. An example would be a woman who just delivered a child, or a patient who feels very weak. Although such patients are allowed and required to eat on Yom Kippur to maintain their health, they must ensure not to eat in a manner that would, in the case of a healthy person, render one liable to the punishment of Karet. A person is liable for Karet for eating on Yom Kippur if he eats the quantity of "Kotebet Ha'hagasa" – a large date – within the period of "Kedeh Achilat Parres." The Poskim identify the size of "Kotebet Ha'hagasa" as two-thirds of a "Ke'besa" (volume of an egg), or 36 grams. The period of "Kedeh Achilat Parres" is identified as between five and ten minutes. Accordingly, Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that an ill patient whose doctor instructed him to eat on Yom Kippur should eat 30 grams of food, and then wait ten minutes before eating another 30 grams. This way, the patient is able to eat as much as he needs to without transgressing the Karet prohibition according to any opinion. The patient (or those caring for him) should weigh food on a scale before Yom Kippur to determine the amount he is allowed to eat, and if necessary, one may weigh the food even on Yom Kippur.If the patient eats bread, he of course recites the Beracha of "Ha'mosi" before eating, regardless of the amount of bread he eats. Netilat Yadayim is required if one plans to eat at least 30 grams of bread. If he plans on eating less than 30 grams, he does not need to wash Netilat Yadayim, and if he plans on eating between 30 and 60 grams, then he washes without a Beracha. If he plans on eating 60 grams or more of bread, then he washes with a Beracha. Therefore, in the case described above, where a patient eats 30 grams of bread, waits ten minutes, and then eats another 30 grams, he must wash Netilat Yadayim with a Beracha. Birkat Ha'mazon is required if one ate 30 grams of bread or more.Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that even if one will be eating less than 30 grams of bread, he may wash Netilat Yadayim is he so desires. He adds that one who washes Netilat Yadayim on Yom Kippur washes as usual, up to the wrist. Since this washing is done for the purpose of satisfying a Halachic requirement, and not for enjoyment, it is entirely permissible, and no restrictions apply.Summary: If a patient whose condition is not life-threatening is medically required to eat on Yom Kippur, he should eat up to 30 grams of food at a time, waiting at least ten minutes in between. A patient whose condition is life-threatening, G-d-forbid, should eat and drink as much as he needs, without any restrictions whatsoever.

What Is Real Love? - JEWISH INTIMACY (35) youtu.be/7aG5HtW5o4I "What people in the street call love, we call Karet" (Chazon Ish). The Iggeret HaKodesh Series by the Ramban has retrained our mind, body and soul thus far, and tonight it will test our hearts to see if we actually know what Real Love is. Enjoy Share and Be Holy.

What Is Real Love? - JEWISH INTIMACY (35) youtu.be/7aG5HtW5o4I "What people in the street call love, we call Karet" (Chazon Ish). The Iggeret HaKodesh Series by the Ramban has retrained our mind, body and soul thus far, and tonight it will test our hearts to see if we actually know what Real Love is. Enjoy Share and Be Holy.

*** This Halacha deals with topic of Yichud. Yichud is the concept that a man may not be secluded with a forbidden woman. Please read all the Halachot on this topic as there are conditions and exclusions that must be fully understood before accepting Lema'ase. ***There is a question asked in regards to the law of Yichud. Yichud is the rule that prohibits man from being secluded with forbidden women. So the question that we deal with today is regarding a married woman who is Needah. A married woman who is Needah is considered forbidden. So since she is forbidden, that how is it possible for a fellow to live with his wife while she is Needah? It's a restriction whereby the punishment for transgressing this rule is Karet. So is there an exemption for a husband to live with his wife when she is Needah?It sounds like a radical question, but the Gemara actually discusses it in Sanhedrin. There, the Gemara refers to a Pasuk in Shir Hashirim, which states, ‘Suga BaShoshanim.' Literally, this means a ‘Fence of Roses'. The Gemara comes to teach us that in this case of a married couple, that it is enough to build a mild fence rather than a strong fence. The mild fence corresponds to a fence of roses, meaning that it is enough for Jewish couples to realize the prohibition while the wife is Needah, and as such to remain apart. There is no need to build a strong fence, meaning a physical separation. Since Halacha says to refrain from interaction, so therefore we presume that married couples will abide and adhere. The Halacha serves as the fence.The Tosafot (basic commentary by many scholars throughout the 12th and 13th centuries) explains the logic. Since the wife is only temporarily forbidden, so then why would they make a transgression if they can just wait a week or two when she becomes permissible? We know that in the case of other women who are not the wife, they can never become permissible, and it is therefore always forbidden for the man to be secluded with them. But in this situation of husband and wife, the Needah situation is temporary. Therefore, it is permissible for husband and wife to remain together in the house while she is Needah.The Rosh, (Rav Asher ben Yechiel 1250-1327) brings a different reason. It's worthy to hear his language. [Listen to the audio clip for the exact quote.] He writes that it is too difficult for the husband and wife to be parted. What are you going to tell the husband and wife? Are you going to tell him or her to move out of the house every month for 2 weeks? Of course not. So the Rosh says that the Chachamim were lenient on this subject because the alternatives are just too difficult.So the question was asked in Halacha about, G-d forbid, a married couple who have decided to get divorced, where they are already going through the paperwork and the litigation to finalize a Gittin, and in the interim she does not go to the Mikveh for the divorce is at hand and there is no hope. There is no chance they are going to reconcile, and they already went to the Shalom Bayit counselors and to the Rabbis, and unfortunately it's hopeless on both sides. So the question was asked if they are allowed to live together in the same house. On this, the Halacha says that even though technically they are still married, but since they are planning to divorce and since she did not go to the Mikveh, therefore they may NOT live together. One of them has to move out. However, in a case where there is still a chance for reconciliation, where they are talking to the Chachamim and to counselors, and as long as she goes to the Mikveh, then it is permissible for them to remain in the same home.

Grocery prices, Laura Karet, Walmart meatGrocery prices continued their downward trend in May. Giant Eagle's former CEO has a new post on a c-store board. And Walmart is building a beef-packaging facility.

Permainan tradisional yang ternyata menjadi permainan favorit waktu itu. Murah dan seru. Semua orang bisa main dan menikmatinya. Urusan jago lompat mah belakangan, yang penting serunya :D Di episode kali ini di #throwbacktime merasakan adrenalin dalam permainan yang waktu itu sering di jumpai oleh anak-anak. ------ #kilasbalik #generasi90an #lompattali #tbt #padawaktuitu #nostalgia #permainantradisional

Nejstarší dochovaná zmínka o hracích kartách je ve statutách Arnošta z Pardubic – zákaz přechovávání v domě hráčů v karty a kostky. S kouzelníkem a sběratelem tarotových karet Pavlem Langerem listujeme nejenom historií karet. Například smrt je podle něj velmi pozitivní karta. „Naděje na něco lepšího,“ vypráví kouzelník, který si do své sbírky musel koupit například koronavirus tarot, kde jako jeden ze symbolů místo poháru jsou toaletní papíry a jako trumf je použit Trump.Všechny díly podcastu Host Lucie Výborné můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

ပညတ်တရားသည် ကျွန်ုပ်တို့ကို မကယ်တင်နိုင်သော်လည်း၊ ကျွန်ုပ်တို့ကို ကယ်တင်ခြင်းသို့ပို့ဆောင်သော လမ်းညွှန်ချက်ဖြစ်သည်။ ထို့အပြင် အပြစ်တရားသည် ထင်ရှားလိမ့်မည်။ သဘာဝအကြောင်းအရာ။ ဓမ္မသီချင်း။ တရားဒေသနာ။

ပညတ်တရားသည် ကျွန်ုပ်တို့ကို မကယ်တင်နိုင်သော်လည်း၊ ကျွန်ုပ်တို့ကို ကယ်တင်ခြင်းသို့ပို့ဆောင်သော လမ်းညွှန်ချက်ဖြစ်သည်။ ထို့အပြင်၊ ပညတ်တရားအားဖြင့် အပြစ်ထင်ရှားလိမ့်မည်။ သဘာဝအကြောင်းအရာ။ ဓမ္မသီချင်း။ တရားဒေသနာ။

My podcast: http://bit.ly/podcastschooloflife My youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@sonnardo My Paypal: https://paypal.me/sonnardo My Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/sonnardo/ Judul buku: Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus - Buku Petunjuk Klasik untuk Memahami Hubungan Pria dan Wanita Karya: John Gray Diterjemahkan oleh: T. Hermaya Penerbit: PT Gramedia Pustaka Utama Dibacakan oleh: Sonnardo Envantius Book cover: https://pimtar.id/filex/source/buku-men-from-mars.jpg Background: https://www.pexels.com/photo/silhouette-of-two-persons-stargazing-1567069/ Summary:Dahulu kala, orang Mars berjumpa dengan orang Venus. Mereka jatuh cinta dan menjalin hubungan yang membahagiakan karena mereka saling menghormati dan menerima perbedaan-perbedaan mereka. Kemudian mereka tiba di Bumi dan mulai menderita amnesia. Mereka lupa bahwa mereka berasal dari planet yang berlainan. Dengan kiasan ini sebagai ilustrasi pertengakaran yang umum terjadi antara pria dan wanita, Dr. John Gray menjelaskan munculnya perbedaan-perbedaan ini di antara kedua jenis kelamin itu yang mengganggu terciptanya hubungan cinta yang saling melengkapi. Berdasarkan keberhasilannya memberi bimbingan selama bertahun-tahun terhadap pasangan suami istri dan perorangan, ia memberi nasihat mengenai cara mengatasi perbedaan dalam gaya berkomunikasi, kebutuhan-kebutuhan emosional, dan perilaku untuk meningkatkan pemahaman yang lebih besar antara masing-masing pasangan. Men Are from Mars, Women Are from Venus merupakan sarana untuk mengembangkan hubungan yang lebih mendalam dan lebih memuaskan. Disclaimer: Jika kamu menyukai buku ini, disarankan untuk membeli buku asli atau membeli versi pdf untuk mendukung penulis dan penerbit. Tags: sonnardo, tius, env, envantius, book, audiobook, buku, suara, suara, buku, indonesia, terjemahan, terjemah, hidup, pandangan, dibacakan, pembacaan, john, gray, men, are, from, mars, women, venus, bestseller, international, gramedia, perbedaan, pria, wanita, cewek, cowok, hubungan, suami, istri, pernikahan, pacaran, lebih, baik, timeless, pengembangan diri, self development #bukuaudio #audiobook #indonesia #couple #mars #venus #buku #membaca #dibacakan #suara #pengembangandiri #berkembang #pasangan #suamiistri #pasutrisehat #pasutribaru #pasutribahagia #gramedia #johngray --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/school-of-life/message

Flipper Zero už si dnes kupuje kde kdo a kvůli informacím na internetu si myslí, co vše umí. Není to ale tak "strašidelné" zařízení, jak se může zdát. V prvním díle našeho nového formátu CYB3R Shot jsme se pokusili funkce Flipperu co nejvíce probrat.  Zajímá vás více? Trápí vás nějaká oblast kybernetické bezpečnosti? Kontaktuje nás, rádi vám pomůžeme. www.cyber-rangers.com  

The question came before Hacham Ovadia Yosef concerning a couple that happened to be in a place without a Mikveh when it was time for her to immerse. As they were near the beach, the woman decided to immerse in the ocean, wearing a bathing suit. Does this qualify as a Halachically valid Tebila (immersion), or does the bathing suit constitute a Hasisa ("interruption") in between her body and the water, thus disqualifying the Tebila?Hacham Ovadia ruled (as written in Taharat Habayit, vol. 3, p. 182; listen to audio recording for precise citation) that the tight bathing suits which are normally worn for swimming would indeed constitute a Hasisa, as they prevent direct contact between the body and the water. Therefore, a woman who swam in the ocean in lieu of immersing in the Mikveh is still considered a Nidda, and relations with her husband remain strictly forbidden.Hacham Ovadia adds, however, that if a woman wears a loose-fitted garment, like a loose robe, which allows the water to directly access the entire body, then the immersion is valid. He notes that this is indeed the way immersion should be done in the case of a female convert. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) rules that when a person converts to Judaism, he or she must immerse in the presence of a Bet Din. In the case of a female covert, it was necessary to avoid problems of modesty, and thus the woman would immerse until her neck while the Hachamim were in the next room. They would then come in, see the woman dunk her head in the water, and then leave. However, this method was appropriate only in ancient times, when the water of the Mikveh was generally murky and thus sufficed to avoid immodesty. Nowadays, however, Mikva'ot are well-kempt and the water is thus exceptionally clean, such that the Hachamim cannot enter the room of the Mikveh even when the woman is in the water. Therefore, the proper way for a Bet Din to witness a female convert's immersion is for her to wear a loose-fitted robe which covers her body but still allows for direct contact with the water.Likewise, in olden times, there were occasions when no proper Mikveh was available, and women had to immerse in lakes, oceans or other public areas. The practice under such circumstances was to perform the immersion while wearing loose-fitted garments.Hacham Ovadia notes in this context a well-known responsum by Rav Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986), in his Iggerot Moshe (Eben Ha'ezer 4:23), which could be misinterpreted as validating an immersion done while wearing a bathing suit. The responsum deals with the status of a boy born to parents who were not observant and thus presumably did not observe the laws of family purity. The question was posed to Rav Moshe whether one may allow his daughter to marry such a boy, in light of the fact that he was conceived in the woman's state of Nidda. Should this factor be considered if he is otherwise a desirable match – well-mannered, God-fearing and Torah observant? Rav Moshe ruled very clearly that the parents' lack of observance should not affect the boy's status as a worthy match, noting, first and foremost, that prospective marriage partners should be evaluated based on their current character and religious standing. A person's parents' level of observance should not diminish from his eligibility. Rav Moshe then adds that in all likelihood, the mother had, at some point, bathed in the ocean and was thus purified from her Nidda status. He writes that although she did not have in mind for her swimming at the beach to purify her, this is irrelevant, since Tebila is effective regardless of intent. And although she did not observe the "seven clean days," this waiting period is required only if she is actually a "Zaba," and it is very possible that she did not, in fact, have this status. Rav Moshe also notes that although she wore a bathing suit, this does not necessarily disqualify the Tebila. At first glance, it appears that Rav Moshe considered immersion with a bathing suit a valid Tebila. Hacham Ovadia clarifies, however, that Rav Moshe did not write this as a conclusive ruling. He mentioned this only as a possibility to be considered, but not as an actual ruling allowing immersion while wearing a bathing suit. God-forbid, Hacham Ovadia writes, should a person mistakenly infer from Rav Moshe's responsum that a woman may immerse while wearing a bathing suit.It should be noted that although Halacha allows immersion while wearing loose-fitted clothing, as mentioned, a woman should not perform Tebila in the ocean without consulting with a Rabbi, as there are numerous other issues to consider. To name just a few, swimming in a public area is never something that should be encouraged, the sand might constitute a Hasisa, and there is nobody to supervise her immersion to ensure it is done properly. Therefore, although in principle a woman may immerse with loose-fitted garments at the beach, she must consult with a competent Rabbi for guidance to avoid other potential problems. The laws of Nidda are especially severe because they are subject to the punishment of Karet, and therefore extreme care must be taken to avoid all potential Halachic questions.Summary: In principle, a woman may immerse in the ocean with loose-fitted garments in lieu of immersion in a Mikveh, whereas immersing while wearing a bathing suit is invalid. Nevertheless, before a woman decides to immerse in the ocean instead of a Mikveh, she must consult with a Rabbi because of the numerous Halachic issues that are entailed.

The Torah in Parashat Emor (23:27-32) introduces a series of commands relevant to the 10 th of Tishri – the day of Yom Kippur. These include the command to offer a special series of sacrifices (“Ve'hikrabtem Isheh L'Hashem” – 23:27), referring to the Musaf offering, which the Torah describes in Parashat Pinhas (Bamidbar 29:7-11). The Musaf offering on Yom Kippur consists of one bull, one ram and seven sheep as an Ola (burnt-offering), and a goat as a Hatat (sin-offering). Additionally, the Torah issues a command forbidding performing Melacha (constructive work) on Yom Kippur (23:28), and a command forbidding eating and drinking on this day (23:29). Finally, the Torah adds an affirmative command requiring that we observe Yom Kippur as a “Shabbat Shabbaton” – a day of cessation of work (23:32). Thus, refraining from work is required on Yom Kippur by force of both an affirmative command and a prohibition against performing work. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the Torah forbade performing work on Yom Kippur so that we will be able to fully devote our attention to pleading for forgiveness for our wrongdoing. If we would be permitted to work, we would be preoccupied with our workday responsibilities, and would thus not focus on prayer and repentance as we should on this day. All work which is forbidden on Shabbat is forbidden also on Yom Kippur. The only exception is what the Gemara calls “Kenibat Ha'yarak,” which refers to either cutting vegetables, or separating the edible parts of the vegetables from the inedible parts. This is permitted on Yom Kippur afternoon, from the time for Minha, whereas this is forbidden on Shabbat Mi'de'rabbanan (by force of Rabbinic enactment). Nevertheless, the Sefer Ha'hinuch observes, it has become customary to refrain from “Kenibat Ha'yarak” even on the afternoon of Yom Kippur. Another difference between Shabbat and Yom Kippur in this regard is that performing Melacha on Shabbat is punishable by the most severe form of capital punishment – Sekila (stoning) – whereas performing Melacha on Yom Kippur is punishable by Karet. Surprisingly, this distinction is noted by the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 611) – despite the fact that, seemingly, this point has no practical Halachic implications nowadays. The Shulhan Aruch presents only the practical information relevant for the observance of Halacha in our time, and the question thus arises as to why Maran, the author of the Shulhan Aruch, found it necessary to note the different punishments for these violations. The commentators explain that this point is relevant to the case of one who caused his fellow damage on Shabbat or Yom Kippur in a manner which involved performing a Melacha. The principle of “Kim Leh Be'de'rabba Mineh” establishes that if one performs an act which simultaneously transgresses two prohibitions, he receives only the punishment for the more severe violation, and is exempt from punishment for the lesser violation. However, this is applicable only if the more severe punishment is one administered by the courts – as opposed to Karet, which is delivered only by G-d. Thus, if one damages his friend on Shabbat in a manner which entails Shabbat desecration, he will not be required to compensate his friend for the damage, because this act renders him liable to the severe punishment of Sekila. If, however, this happened on Yom Kippur, he would be liable to pay for the damages, because the punishment of Karet for desecrating Yom Kippur does not absolve him from responsibility for the damages. The prohibition against performing Melacha on Yom Kippur applies in all times and places, and to both men and women.

The Torah commands in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 23:27) that on the 10 th day of the month of Tishri – the day of Yom Kippur – we are required to “afflict our souls” (“Ve'initem Et Nafshotechem”). The Sages understood this as a reference to “Dabar She'me'abed Et Ha'nefesh” – something which “reduces” the body, meaning, fasting, abstaining from food and drink. In addition, we are to refrain on Yom Kippur from four other types of physical enjoyment – bathing, applying oil or ointment to the skin, wearing shoes, and marital relations. The Rishonim debate the question of whether these four activities are included in the Torah command to “afflict our souls” on Yom Kippur, or are forbidden Mi'de'rabbanan (by force of Rabbinic enactment). According to some opinions, Torah law forbids only eating and drinking, and the Sages later enacted that we abstain also from these other four forms of physical enjoyment. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that in G-d's infinite kindness, He designated a day on which we attain forgiveness for our wrongdoing through repentance. We are to refrain from food and drink on this day, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, because physical activities have the effect of drawing us toward our physical desires, away from the pursuit of wisdom and the service of G-d. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the true “sweetness” of life is Torah study and Misva observance, whereas the physical pleasures of life are “artificial” sweetness. The more we involve ourselves in physical pleasures, the less likely we are to enjoy and pursue real joy, the joy of serving Hashem. Therefore, on Yom Kippur, when we are judged, we abstain from physical enjoyment to show that we are making an effort to draw ourselves toward the service of G-d. Normally, when the Torah forbids eating something, one transgresses the prohibition by eating a Ke'zayit. On Yom Kippur, however, since the Torah does not directly forbid eating, but rather requires “afflicting our souls,” the command is violated through the consumption of a “Kotebet Ha'gasa” – the volume of a large date, which is larger than a Ke'zayit. The Sages determined that it is only after eating this amount that one experiences a degree of satiation such that he no longer feels “afflicted.” One who drinks on Yom Kippur transgresses this command if he drinks the amount of “Melo Lugmav” (a cheek-full). Addressing the other four prohibitions, the Sefer Ha'hinuch opines that these are forbidden only “Mi'de'rabbanan,” and therefore, if a person has some particular need to perform one of these activities on Yom Kippur, he is allowed to do so. For example, a person with scabs in his scalp which cause him discomfort may apply ointment to alleviate the discomfort. One who needs to cross through water to guard his property, or for some other purpose, he may, even though he will then be bathing. Only leather shoes are forbidden to be worn on Yom Kippur; shoes made from other materials may be worn. An ill patient, Heaven forbid, for whom fasting can be life-threatening, may and in fact must eat on Yom Kippur in order to avoid danger. He may eat if an expert physician says that he must, and even if the doctor determines that his life is not threatened by fasting, he may eat if he feels that he must in order to protect his life. The Sefer Ha'hinuch mentions in this context that the fast of Tisha B'Ab, which the Sages enacted for the purpose of mourning the destruction of the Bet Ha'mikdash and other tragedies, features the stringencies of Yom Kippur. Meaning, the fast begins before sundown the day before, and all five prohibitions must be observed. Moreover, even pregnant women and nursing mothers are required to fast unless this poses a risk, just as they are on Yom Kippur. This command applies in all places and all times, to both men and women. One who eats or drinks the aforementioned quantities on Yom Kippur has transgressed this affirmative command, as well as a separate prohibition, which is punishable by Karet. One who eats accidentally (such as if he did not realize it was Yom Kippur) is required to bring a Korban Hatat (sin offering).

Unikátní pojízdné muzeum se pomalu chystá na krátký zimní spánek. Trasu pro příští rok by mělo znát nejpozději na jaře. Legiovlak jezdí po celé republice, v plánu je Slovensko a přistála i pozvánka z Belgie.Všechny díly podcastu Máme hosty můžete pohodlně poslouchat v mobilní aplikaci mujRozhlas pro Android a iOS nebo na webu mujRozhlas.cz.

Start Artist Song Time Album Year 0:02:47 Djam Karet The Master's Palace 5:21 Island In The Red Night Sky 2022 0:09:41 Djam Karet The Continuum 4:18 Island In The Red Night Sky 2022 0:14:50 Djam Karet Arrival 5:41 Island In The Red Night Sky 2022 0:21:43 De Blaise Again 6:09 Single 2022 0:29:04 Massimo Pieretti […]

The Torah commands in Parashat Emor (Vayikra 22:2) that the Kohanim must not “desecrate My sacred Name” by performing the Aboda (service in the Bet Ha'mikdash) in a state of Tum'a (impurity). This prohibition is especially strict, as violators are liable to Mita Bi'ydeh Shamayim (death by G-d, as opposed to execution by Bet Din). The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah forbade Kohanim from serving in a state of impurity out of respect for the Bet Ha'mikdash, and for the Aboda. Allowing somebody impure to perform the service would compromise the honor of both the site and the service, and so the Torah forbade Kohanim from serving in a state of Tum'a. The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists a separate Biblical prohibition (Misva 363) forbidding entry into the area of the Bet Ha'mikdash in a state of impurity, and one who violates this command is liable to Karet. The question thus arises as to why an additional prohibition is necessary to forbid performing the Aboda in a state of Tum'a. After all, the Aboda, quite obviously, is performed only in the Bet Ha'mikdash, and thus once the Torah forbade entering the area in a state of Tum'a, nothing is seemingly added by a separate prohibition against performing the Aboda in a state of Tum'a. Tosafot in Masechet Shabuot (17) answer this question by envisioning a scenario whereby a Kohen is unaware of the prohibition against entering the Bet Ha'mikdash in a state of Tum'a, but is aware of the prohibition against serving in a state of Tum'a. If such a Kohen enters the Bet Ha'mikdash while impure, he has transgressed this prohibition inadvertently, and is thus not liable to Karet for entering the area in a state of impurity. If he then performs the Aboda, he transgresses the second prohibition intentionally, because he is aware of this prohibition. Therefore, although he is not liable to Karet for entering the Bet Ha'mikdash, he is liable to Mita Bi'ydeh Shamayim for performing the Aboda. Since the Torah issues two separate commands, forbidding entering and serving, the Kohen in this case would be liable to Mita Bi'ydeh Shamayim for serving in a state of Tum'a. This command, of course, applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash.

Jacob and Bet El (pronounced BATE EL) is given the same promises (check it out in Gen. 28:13-15 and 12:1-3) that were given to his grand pa Abraham but not that Jacob's name will be famous.  The covenant with Abraham and his seed (Hebrew meaning descendants) is amazing.  For through Abraham and his seed all the families of all the nations will be blessed.  However, in this lesson we'll see that the Hebrew has an alternative meaning.  It is bigger than we thought.  Blessed is perhaps NOT the right way of using the conceptual meaning in this context. We need to understand that there is a missing piece in how Adonai put together the Torah.  Once we get this the event of Jacob's dream and his encounter with the Lord takes us to the cross.  Even the great rabbis of Judaism saw it.  They saw that there is something missing in the Torah. Consider Rabbi Akiva's words in the Talmud.  "Rabbi Akiva says that if those subject to the punishment of karet repent, the Heavenly beit-din [court] grants them remission." (Makkot 13b) Karet is a Hebrew word that means an offense, a sin, that is done on purpose or intentionally.  It is so serious that an offense of Karet cuts one off from being a part of Israel and as per Torah, as per the very words of God, karet is never ever forgiven or cleansed.  Rabbi Akiva, however, thinks the Torah is wrong.  He says Karet can be forgiven is by repentance.  What?  The Bible never says that.  The Lord never ever said that serious sins can be cleansed or forgiven by simply repenting.  What we are seeing is Akiva's opinion and not the very words of God in His Torah.  We are also seeing that Akiva is implying that Yom Kippur does not take care of intentional sin.  He is implying that the sin sacrifice or the sacrifice of goats or sheep or bulls is insufficient to cleanse one's Karet done intentionally. Maimonides' says it another way.  The more one confesses and elaborates on this matter, the more praiseworthy he is. And, also, those under an obligation to bring sin‑offerings and trespass‑offerings, who bring their sacrifices for sins committed either in error or willfully, are not acquitted [of their sins] by means of these offerings until they repent and confess in words… (https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-dimensions-of-repentance/)   In other words, sacrifice alone cannot bring acquittal; confession is a requirement and without it, repentance cannot take place.  But, once again Maimonides is clearly implying that the sacrifices and rituals of Yom Kippur do not take away sins done intentionally, on purpose, with the full realization on the sinner. The writer of the book of Hebrews also agrees.  Recall … and not through the blood of goats and calves, but through His own blood, He entered the holy place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption. (Heb 9:12)   Akiva and Maimonides and the author of Hebrews all agree.  The Torah is missing something.  There is no ritual, no sacrifice, no prayer that will assure us of totally forgiveness. Maimonides and Akiva's opinion is that one must truly repent and confess.  But, the the book of Hebrews and John and Paul, agreeing with these great rabbis, teaches us what the missing piece is. It is clearly explained by the disciple John as we read … "... but if we walk in the Light as He Himself is in the Light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus His Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and righteous to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." (1Jn 1:7-9) And then we read Paul's word that Jesus, God Himself, cleanses us by the blood. "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.” (Act 20:28) So, we see we must repent.  We see that we must confess.  But God is saying that someone must pay the price for our since.  Akiva and Maimonides never addressed this.  Someone must purchase us, in Hebrew redeem us, to be set free of the punishment of our Karet, our sin against the Lord done intentionally and willfully.  Rev. Ferret - who is this guy? What's his background? Why should I listen to him? Check his background at this link -

The Torah in Parashat Kedoshim (19:31) forbids practicing the “Yidoni” form of witchcraft. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that this refers to the ancient practice to take a bone of a certain species of bird (called the “Yadua”), place it one's mouth, offer incense and perform other rituals. This would result in a voice coming from the bone and providing information about the future. The Sefer Ha'hinuch references in this context his discussion regarding the previous prohibition, which forbids a similar form of witchcraft called “Ob.” There he explained that the Torah forbade such practices because they have the effect of compromising one's Emuna. If a person feels that he can “outsmart the system” by receiving information about the future, then he will not place his trust in G-d. Moreover, these practices are closely associated with pagan worship, and for this reason, too, the Torah strictly forbade fortune-telling and witchcraft, in order to distance us from idolatry. As in the case of “Ob,” one who performs the “Yidoni” ritual in the presence of witnesses who had issued a warning is liable to Sekila. If he transgressed without witnesses or a warning, he is punished with Karet. If one consulted with a “Yidoni” practitioner and acted upon his advice, he is liable to Malkut. This prohibition applies in all times, in all places, and to both men and women.

The Torah commands in Parashat Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:31), “Al Tifnu El Ha'obot” – that it is forbidden to consult with the form of witchcraft called “Ob.” The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that in ancient times, sorcerers would bring a certain type of incense and perform other rituals which would cause a voice to be heard from under the person's arm. The sorcerers would “consult” with this voice to receive predictions about the future and other pieces of information. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the Torah forbade practicing “Ob” because it could undermine one's faith in G-d. We are to believe that everything which happens is brought about by G-d, and that He governs and orchestrates our lives in accordance with our deeds. Those who resort to witchcraft feel that they can “outsmart the system,” so-to-speak, that they can work around G-d and control their destiny independent of His governance by consulting with spirits. This undermines their faith in, and sense of subservience to, the Almighty. Moreover, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, these practices are generally associated with pagan beliefs and pagan worship, and thus the Torah forbade them as part of its firm rejection of idolatry, and to distance us from foreign worship. This prohibition applies in all times and places, and to both males and females. One who performed the “Ob” rituals in the presence of witnesses after having been warned is liable to Sekila (execution via stoning). If he committed this violation without witnesses or without a warning, then he is liable to Karet. If he violated this command unintentionally, then he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). One who consults with an “Ob” sorcerer is liable to Malkut if he acts upon the guidance received from the sorcerer.

RKUHP Segera Disahkan, Sejumlah Pasal Masih Jadi Polemik | Puncak Kasus Subvarian Omicron Diprediksi 25 Ribu Per Hari | Eks Bupati Muba Dodi Alex Noerdin Dituntut 10 Tahun 7 Bulan Penjara *Kami ingin mendengar saran dan komentar kamu terkait podcast yang baru saja kamu simak, melalui surel ke podcast@kbrprime.id

The Torah assigns each sacrifice a deadline by which the sacrificial food must be eaten, and after which the food becomes “Notar” – “leftover,” and thus unfit for consumption. In the Book of Shemot (29:33), the Torah forbids eating sacrificial food which became unfit for consumption – “Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hem.” And in the Book of Vayikra (29:33), the Torah writes that eating Notar is punishable by Karet (“Ve'ochelav Avono Yisa…Ve'nichreta Ha'nefesh Ha'hi Me'ameha”). The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists the prohibition against eating Notar as the 215 th Biblical command. Certain parts of an animal sacrifice are not included in this prohibition, and eating them does not violate the prohibition of Notar. These include the animal's skin, the liquid it emits, the small pieces of meat stuck to the skin, the sinews, the horns, the hooves, the fingernails, and (in the case of a bird sacrifice) the beak and feathers. Moreover, one who consumes blood of the sacrifice after the final time for the sacrifice's consumption does not violate the prohibition of Notar, as blood is not included in this prohibition. However, he quite obviously violates the separate prohibition forbidding the consumption of blood. The frankincense which accompanies certain grain offerings is likewise not included in the Notar prohibition. If a gentile offers a sacrifice in the Bet Ha'mikdash, the sacrificial food is not subject to the prohibition of Notar. This prohibition, of course, applies only in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash. It applies to both males and females. One who intentionally partakes of a Ke'zayit of Notar is, as mentioned, liable to Karet. If one transgresses this prohibition mistakenly, he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that a person is liable to Karet even if he ate half a Ke'zayit of Notar and half a Ke'zayit of Pigul – meat of a sacrifice that the Kohen prepared with the wrong intention (intending to partake of the sacrifice after the allotted time). Normally, one who eats half a Ke'zayit of one kind of forbidden food and a half a Ke'zayit of a different kind of forbidden food is not punished, because the different prohibitions do not combine to the amount of a Ke'zayit. This case marks an exception, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, because the prohibitions of Notar and Pigul are both introduced in the same verse in the Book of Shemot (“Lo Ye'achel Ki Kodesh Hem”), as mentioned above. Therefore, they are treated like a single prohibition, such that half a Ke'zayit of Pigul and half a Ke'zayit of Notar combine to render one liable to Karet.

Jangan menggunakan jam karet, biasakan untuk tepat waktu. Karena kita tidak mengetahui apa kesibukan orang lain setelahnya

In the same verse in which the Torah forbids a man from cohabiting with an animal, the Torah forbids a woman from cohabiting with an animal (Vayikra 18:23). Although intuitively we might have viewed these prohibitions as two aspects of a single Biblical command forbidding bestiality, the Rambam maintained that these are, in fact, two separate Torah commands. He drew proof from the Gemara's discussion in the beginning of Masechet Keritut, where it lists the 36 prohibitions for which violators are liable to Karet. A man's cohabiting with an animal and a woman's cohabiting with an animal are listed as two separate commands. This prohibition applies in all places and in all times. If a female aged 12 or above cohabits with an animal, either in the normal manner of intercourse (“Ke'darkah”) or in the abnormal manner (“She'lo Ke'darkah”), and there are witnesses to the act, then both she and the animal are put to death through Sekila (stoning). If this was done by a girl between the ages of 3 and 12, then the animal is put to death, but the girl is not. However, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that she should be given some punishment for committing such an act. If the girl was younger than 3, than neither she nor the animal is put to death. If there were no witnesses to the act, then the violator is liable to Karet. If this violation was committed accidentally (meaning, if the woman was not aware that this is forbidden), then she must bring a Hatat (sin-offering), and the animal is not put to death. Intercourse with an animal falls under the category of “Arayot” (forbidden intimate relations) which is included among the seven Noachide laws that are binding upon all mankind, even gentiles. Thus, even non-Jews are bound by this prohibition. It should be noted that not all relationships forbidden by the Torah are forbidden for gentiles. The category of “Arayot” which is binding upon gentiles includes seven relationships: with one's mother, with one's father's wife (even if she is not one's mother), one's sister from the same mother, another man's wife, homosexual intercourse, and bestiality. A gentile is not forbidden from having relations with his sister with whom he shares a father but not a mother. The rule of “Ger She'nitgayer Ke'katan She'nolad Dameh” establishes that once a non-Jew converts and becomes a Jew, he is considered a newborn with respect to familial relationships. This means that he is no longer considered by Halacha to be related to his biological family members. On the level of Torah law, then, a convert is allowed to marry even his immediate family members – his mother and his sister – since he is not Halachically related to them. However, the Sages enacted that a convert may not marry any family member with whom marriage was forbidden before his conversion, so as not to appear as having fewer restrictions as a Jew than he did as a gentile. In order that a convert not give the impression as declining morally after converting, the Sages established a prohibition against marrying after conversion anyone whom he was not permitted to marry before his conversion. However, a convert is allowed to marry family members whom gentiles are permitted to marry, even if such a relationship is forbidden for Jews. And thus a convert is allowed to marry his half-sister with whom he shares only a father, as this relationship was allowed when he as a non-Jew.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (18:23) forbids a male from engaging in intercourse with an animal. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the Torah forbids such an act because G-d wants all creatures to reproduce their own species, and not to mix with other species. For this reason, the Sefer Ha'hinuch adds, creatures produced through crossbreeding are incapable of reproducing. For example, a mule – the product of a horse and donkey – cannot reproduce, and fruits produced through grafting are likewise unable to reproduce. G-d arranged the natural world in such a way that products of crossbreeding are not blessed with the ability to reproduce because he wanted all the original species to mate only within the same species to reproduce that species. All the more so, the Sefer Ha'hinuch adds, G-d does not want the human being, the crown jewel of creation, to mix with the lower species by mating with animals. This prohibition forbids intercourse with both Behemot (domesticated animals) and Hayot (non-domesticated animals). Although the Torah mentions here only “Behema,” this prohibition applies to all creatures. This prohibition applies to an animal of any age, even an animal that has just been born. Both regular intercourse (“Ke'darkah”) and abnormal intercourse (“She'lo Ke'darkah”) are forbidden by force of this Biblical command. If a man willfully transgressed this prohibition and had intercourse with an animal, in the presence of witnesses who warned him in advance, then he is liable to Sekila (execution by stoning), and the animal is likewise put to death through Sekila. The Gemara explains that the animal is executed for two reasons. First, even though the animal quite obviously cannot be blamed for what happened, nevertheless, since it did, after all, cause a person to commit this grievous sinful act, it needs to be put to death. Secondly, allowing it to live would bring shame to the perpetrator, as people who see the animal would immediately be reminded of the repugnant act the sinner had committed. The Torah has great sensitivity even to sinners, and wishes to protect their honor, and thus even if someone commits this grave sin, for which he is put to death, nevertheless, he is protected from additional shame. The animal is put to death only if the one who performed the act is at least nine years old. Of course, the one who committed the act is not executed unless he is a Halachic adult (age thirteen or above). Nevertheless, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that even if the perpetrator is a minor, he should receive some punishment for this shameful act as part of his training to observe the Torah's laws. If the perpetrator was younger than age nine, then the animal is not put to death. This prohibition applies in all times and in all places. As mentioned, one who intentionally violates this prohibition in the presence of witnesses is liable to Sekila. If no witnesses saw the violation, then he is liable to Karet. If one transgressed this prohibition unintentionally – meaning, he was not aware that the Torah forbids such an act – then he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering).

The Torah commands in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (Vayikra 18:22), “Ve'et Zachar Lo Tishkab Mishkebeh Isha, To'eba Hi” – “And you shall not sleep with a man in the manner of sleeping with a woman; it is an abomination.” The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that G-d wishes that the world be populated, and He therefore commanded that a man must not waste his seed by having a homosexual relationship, which, quite obviously, cannot result in reproduction. Secondly, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, such an act is inherently “filthy, repulsive and unseemly in the eyes of all intelligent people.” As we were all created to the serve the Almighty, it is unfitting for someone to get involved in such unbecoming behavior. If two male adults engage in an intimate relationship, and the act was seen by two witnesses, then they are liable to Sekila (execution by stoning). If one of the two males is a child under the age of nine, then they have not transgressed the Biblical prohibition, but are liable to Malkut by force of Rabbinic enactment. If one is an adult and the other is a child between the ages of nine and twelve, then the adult is liable to Sekila and the minor is liable to Malkut by force of Rabbinic enactment. Amidst his discussion of this command, the Sefer Ha'hinuch addresses the unusual case of a man who has intercourse with an “Androginus” – a person with the Simanim (physical properties) of both a man and a woman. If a man commits a homosexual act with an “Androginus,” then he is guilty of transgressing this prohibition; if he commits a heterosexual act with an “Androginus,” then he does not violate this prohibition, but is liable to Malkut by force of Rabbinic enactment. The Sages enacted that one should not allow a child to be alone with an adult non-Jewish male, such as a private tutor, as a safeguard against this prohibition. This prohibition applies in all places and in all times. As mentioned, violations of this command in the presence of witnesses are punishable by Sekila. If no witnesses saw the act, then one is liable to Karet. If one transgressed unintentionally, then he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). This prohibition is included among the Arayot (forbidden intimate relationships), and it thus applies also to gentiles, as the command of Arayot is among the seven Noachide laws which are binding upon all mankind. The only exception, as the Rambam writes, is an Ebed Kena'ani (gentile servant owned by a Jew), who is not bound by the Arayot prohibitions. An Ebed Kena'ani has begun the process of conversion but has yet to complete it, and he thus is considered neither a gentile nor a full-fledged Jew. As such, these commands do not apply to him.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (Vayikra 18:21) commands, “U'mi'zar'acha Lo Titen Le'ha'abir La'molech” – that one may not hand over his offspring for the worship of the pagan god called Molech. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the followers of this pagan cult would bring their child and hand him to the priests, who would then wave the child up and down, and bring him to the statue. The priests would then hand the child back to the parent and light a fire, whereupon the parent would bring the child through the fire. Some Rishonim, including Rashi and the Rambam, maintained that the child was not burned, but rather passed harmlessly through this fire as a ritual. According to Rashi, two fires were lit, and the child was brought in between them; according to the Rambam, the child was quickly passed through the fire, without suffering any harm. By contrast, the Ramban understood that the child was actually burned to death, as a sacrifice to Molech. The question arises as to why the Torah issued a separate command prohibiting the worship of Molech. The Torah already forbade worshipping foreign deities; why, then, did it specify a prohibition forbidding the worship of Molech? The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, based on the Rambam, that at the time the Torah was given, the pagans were especially devoted to this evil idolatrous rite, and so the Torah found it necessary to single it out in particular. The Ramban offers a different approach, explaining that the prohibition against Molech is unique in that one violates this command even if one worships Molech differently from its normal manner of worship. When it comes to other pagan gods, one is in violation of idol worship only if he worships the idol in the manner accepted by followers of that deity. The prohibition of Molech, however, is transgressed even if one deviates from the usual manner of worship. A unique – and surprising – aspect of the Molech prohibition is that one transgresses this command only if he gives one or several of his children over to Molech, but not if he gives all his children. The verse forbids giving “Mi'zar'acha” – “from among your offspring” – for the worship of Molech, implying that it is forbidden only to give some of one's offspring; giving all of one's children does not violate this command. Of course, this requires explanation. How could giving all of one's children for the worship of Molech possibly be less severe than giving only one child? The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the priests of Molech would fiendishly lure the masses to give over their children for this rite by assuring them that they would be rewarded with success and blessing for their other children. The only way the priests would convince parents to surrender their children for this rite would be by making promises that their other children would be healthy and successful. Therefore, Molech could only be worshipped through the passing of one or several children, but not by passing all of one's children, because parents only agreed to participate in this worship for the benefit of their other children. One violates this command by handing over any child to Molech, even a child who is a Mamzer (the product of an incestuous or adulterous relationship). This prohibition is transgressed regardless of whether one handed over a son or a daughter, and even if he handed over a grandson, great-grandson, or any descendant. If one hands over a sibling, however, he is not liable for violating this command. For that matter, one does not violate this prohibition if he offers himself for the worship of Molech. (Incidentally, this Halacha has been cited as proof that the Molech worship does not entail burning to death; the fact that it needs to be said that one is not liable to punishment for handing himself over to Molech worship proves that one who is given over to Molech is not killed in the process.) This prohibition applies in all times and in all places, and to both men and women. One who intentionally violated this command in the presence of witnesses who warned him in advance is liable to Sekila (execution by stoning); if there were no witnesses or there was no warning, then he is liable to Karet. If one violated this command unintentionally, he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). This prohibition applies even to gentiles, as idol worship is included among the seven Noachide laws which are binding upon all mankind.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (Vayikra 18:19) commands that one may not have relations with a woman “Be'nidat Tum'atah” – when she is in a state of impurity due to menstruation. Once a woman becomes a Nidda (menstrual woman), she remains impure until she immerses in a Mikveh, and relations with her are thus forbidden until after the immersion. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains the reason for this command as based upon Hashem's concern to distance us from anything which could be harmful. He writes that beyond the spiritual harm that could be caused by having a relationship with a Nidda, this could also cause physical harm, and so the Torah forbade marital relations during the time the wife is a Nidda. On the level of Torah law, the status of Nidda extends for seven days from the time bleeding first occurred, and the woman can then immerse and become Tehora (pure) the night after the seventh day. The verse states in Parashat Mesora (Vayikra 15:19), “Shibat Yamim Tiheyeh Benidatah” – “She shall be in her state of impurity for seven days.” The Rabbis understood the word “Tiheyeh” (“shall be”) to mean that a woman remains a Nidda even after the bleeding ceased, and even beyond seven days, until she immerses in a Mikveh. Therefore, relations remain forbidden until after immersion. This immersion, according to Torah law, can be performed after the seventh day since the onset of bleeding, even if bleeding continued throughout the seven days, as long as it has ceased before the immersion. The accepted practice, however, is that a woman who becomes a Nidda does not immerse until after seven “clean days” – meaning, until after she goes through seven days without experiencing bleeding. The Gemara says that Jewish women accepted this stringency to avoid confusion between ordinary menstruation and bleeding which requires waiting a period of seven “clean days.” When the bleeding stops, the woman performs an internal inspection called “Hefsek Tahara” to ascertain the cessation of bleeding, whereupon the seven “clean days” begin. She then performs an inspection each morning and afternoon during the seven days, and if no blood is seen, she immerses the night after the seventh day. Any female that experiences menstrual bleeding becomes a Nidda, regardless of her age. Theoretically, if even an infant girl would experience such bleeding, she would attain the halachic status of Nidda until seven days have passed and she immerses. A Shifha Kena'anit (non-Jewish maidservant) likewise becomes a Nidda as a result of menstruation, as she has begun the process of becoming a Jew. On the level of Torah law, a non-Jewish woman does not attain the status of Nidda, but the Sages enacted that even a non-Jewish woman is considered a Nidda as a result of menstruation. Therefore, a man who cohabits with a non-Jewish woman is regarded to have violated the prohibition of relations with a Nidda (as well as other prohibitions, represented by the acrostic “Nashgaz”: “Nidda,” “Shifha,” “Goya,” “Zona”). As far as Torah law is concerned, a woman becomes a Nidda only if she bleeds with a “Hargasha” (“sensation”), feeling the flow of blood. If a woman did not feel any bleeding but saw a bloodstain, then, according to Torah law, she does not attain the status of Nidda. The Sages, however, enacted that the discovery of a stain indeed renders the woman a Nidda, depending on the stain's color and size. Halacha forbids relations with one's wife not only during the time when she is a Nidda, but also when the onset of bleeding is expected, based on the menstrual cycle (“Ona Ha'semucha Le'vestah”). In order to safeguard against violations of this prohibition, the Sages enacted “Harhakot” – certain measures intended to create some distance between a husband and wife during the time the woman is a Nidda. The husband and wife during this time may not even casually touch one another, or directly hand each other objects. The immersion after the seven “clean days” must be performed specifically at night, and not during the day. This prohibition applies in all times and all places. If a man and woman cohabit when the woman is a Nidda, they are both liable to Karet. If this violation was committed unintentionally, then they must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). Normally, a child produced through a forbidden relationship that is punishable by Karet is considered a Mamzer. In the case of a relationship with a Nidda, however, this is not the case, and the child is not considered a Mamzer. The child is, however, considered “Pagum” (“tainted”) because of the forbidden manner in which he or she was produced. The law of Nidda is one of the three primary Misvot assigned to women listed by the Mishna in Masechet Shabbat, the other two being Halla (separating a portion of the dough during baking) and Shabbat candle lighting. The Maharal of Prague (Rav Yehuda Loew, 1520-1609) drew an association between these three Misvot and the famous teaching of the Midrash describing the three constant miracles that occurred in the homes of our matriarchs Sara and Ribka: the candle lit on Ereb Shabbat burned for an entire week, until the next Ereb Shabbat; the bread prepared on Ereb Shabbat remained fresh throughout the week; and a cloud hovered above the entrance, representing the divine presence which rested upon the home. Clearly, the miracle of the candle is associated with the Misva of Shabbat candle lighting, and the miracle of the dough is associated with the Misva of Halla. It thus follows that the third miracle – the cloud signifying G-d's presence – is associated with the Misva of Nidda. The Maharal explains that this shows that the observance of Taharat Ha'mishpaha (family purity) is what brings the Shechina into the home. This Misva is what brought the special cloud, which represented Hashem's presence in the homes of our saintly patriarchs and matriarchs. The Talmud teaches, “Ish Ve'isha Zachu, Shechina Benehem” – “If a husband and wife are meritorious, then the Shechina rests among them.” This is alluded to in the words “Ish” (“man”) and “Isha” (“woman”), which contain the same two letters (“Alef” and “Shin”), with the letter “Yod” added to form “Ish” and the letter “Heh” added to form “Isha.” These two letters – “Yod” and “Heh” – spell one of the Names of G-d. The Rabbis explained that the combined Gematria (numerical value) of “Yod” and “Heh” is 15, which alludes to the fifteen inspections that a woman makes before she may immerse and regain her status of purity (the initial Hefsek Tahara inspection, and the two daily inspections throughout the seven “clean days”). It is through the meticulous observance of the laws of Nidda that “Shechina Benehem” – the divine presence rests in a Jewish home. In order to bring Hashem's presence and blessing in our lives, we must observe this special Misva and maintain the unique quality of holiness and purity in the home.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (Vayikra 18:18) commands that one may not marry his wife's sister “Be'hayeha” – “during her lifetime.” This means that once a man marries a woman, he may not marry or have relations with that woman's sister, even after he divorces his wife, until after his wife dies. Once his wife passes away, he is permitted to marry her sister. This prohibition forbids both betrothing the wife's sister, and having a relationship with her without marriage. One who betroths the sister or has an intimate relationship with her outside the framework of marriage has transgressed this prohibition. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains the reason for this prohibition as rooted in the Torah's concern to maintain peace and harmony among people. Certainly, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, the Torah seeks to avoid friction among family members, who are naturally drawn to love and cherish one another. If two sisters marry the same man, this would likely lead to jealousy, friction and competition, thus ruining the relationship between the two sisters, and for this reason, the Torah forbade marrying two sisters. In the interest of maintaining peaceful relations among sisters, the Torah commanded that one may not marry his wife's sister unless his wife has passed away. This prohibition applies regardless of whether the sisters are full sisters, half-sisters who share the same father, or half-sisters who share the same mother. The Rabbis enacted a safeguard to protect against violations of this prohibition, forbidding relations with the sister of one's deceased brother's wife in a situation of Yibum. If a married man dies without children, then his brother is required to either marry the widow (Yibum), or to release her from this bond by performing the Halisa ceremony. The Sages enacted that once a married man dies without children, his brother may not marry the deceased's wife's sister, even if Yibum does not occur. Even before the brother marries the widow, or even after the brother performs Halisa, he may not marry the widow's sister as long as the widow is alive, since he has an automatic bond to the widow and she thus resembles his wife. This enactment is called “Ahot Zekukato” (the sister of the woman to whom one is bound by the Misva of Yibum) and “Ahot Halusato” (the sister of the woman to whom one performed Halisa). This prohibition applies in all places and in all times. If one transgressed this prohibition, and had an intimate relationship with his wife's sister or married her during his wife's lifetime, then he is liable to Karet. If he committed the violation in the presence of witnesses who warned him in advance, then he is liable to Malkut. If the prohibition was violated unintentionally, then he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). If he had relations with “Ahot Zekukato” or “Ahot Halusato” (as discussed above), then he receives Malkut for violating the Rabbinic edict. If a person marries his wife's sister in violation of this command, then this marriage does not halachically take effect. There is a rule that if a person betroths a woman with whom relations are forbidden and punishable by Karet, then the betrothal does not take effect at all. Therefore, in the case of a man who marries his wife's sister during his wife's lifetime, the marriage does not take effect, and he must leave the sister without needing to grant her a Halachic divorce, since the betrothal never took effect. Many writers addressed the question of how Yaakob Abinu was permitted to marry Leah and Rachel, who were sisters. Since the patriarchs observed the Torah's laws, how is it possible that Yaakob would be married to two sisters? There are three classic answers to this question. The first is the famous approach taken by the Ramban, who advanced the theory that it was primarily in Eretz Yisrael where the patriarchs observed the Misvot. The Land of Israel is where the Misvot are ideally to be observed, and thus the patriarchs, who lived before the Misvot became obligatory, observed the Misvot when they were in the land, but not necessarily during the time they spent outside the land. Yaakob married Leah and Rachel in Haran, outside Eretz Yisrael, and so he was allowed to marry two sisters. Indeed, the Ramban says, right when Yaakob returned to Eretz Yisrael, the second sister whom he had married – Rachel – passed away, such that he was not married to sisters in the Land of Israel. The Maharal of Prague (Rav Yehuda Loew, 1520-1609) explained differently, noting that whereas we observe the Torah which was taught to Moshe and then transmitted through the generations, the patriarchs observed the Torah through Ru'ah Ha'kodesh, which is a form of prophecy. Their entire observance of the Misvot was based on prophetic inspiration, and it was through prophetic inspiration that Yaakob determined that he was to marry Rachel even after marrying Leah. Since the patriarchs to begin with observed the Misvot as revealed to them through Ru'ah Ha'kodesh, Yaakob married both Leah and Rachel because it was revealed to him through Ru'ah Ha'kodesh that with them he would produce the twelve tribes of Israel. Finally, many scholars posited that before Leah and Rachel married Yaakob, they had the status of gentiles, and they underwent conversion to marry him. There is a famous Halachic principle that “Ger She'nitgayer Ke'katan She'nolad Dameh” – a gentile who converts is considered born anew, such that he is not considered Halachically related to his biological relatives. Hence, once Rachel and Leah converted, they were no longer considered sisters, and thus Yaakob was permitted to marry them. Returning to the Sefer Ha'hinuch, this Misva shows us the great importance the Torah accords to peace and harmony within families. We must do everything we can to preserve the natural feelings of closeness and love that exist among family members and relatives, and to avoid tension and conflicts within the family. The Torah demands that we live joyfully and peacefully with one another – especially with our family members, with whom we are to forge especially close bonds of love and devotion.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (Vayikra 18:17) commands that once a man marries a woman, he may never then have relations with or marry her daughters or granddaughters, even those produced with a different man. The Sefer Ha'hinuch lists as the 203 rd Biblical command the prohibition against relations with one's wife daughter; as the 204 th Biblical command the prohibition against relations with one's wife's son's daughter; and as the 205 th Biblical command the prohibition against relations with one's wife's daughter's daughter. The Sefer Ha'hinuch, in discussing this 205 th command, summarizes the various family members of one's wife whom one may not marry or cohabit with. On the level of Torah law, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, six of one's wife's relatives are forbidden – three “above” and three “below.” The three relatives “above” are the wife's mother, and both her grandmothers. The three “below” are the wife's daughter, her son's daughter, and her daughter's daughter. The Rabbis added a safeguard, forbidding an additional six relatives – four “above” and two “below.” The four “above” are the wife's four great-grandmothers, and the two “below” are the wife's great-granddaughters – the granddaughter of her son and the granddaughter of her daughter. These prohibitions apply in all places and in all times. If one had a relationship with his wife's granddaughter, from either her son or her daughter, while the wife was still alive, then both he and the woman he cohabited with are liable to Serefa (execution by fire). If the wife had already passed away, then the punishment is Karet, and if this was done unintentionally, then the violator must bring a Hatat (sin-offering). If one had intercourse with a family member with whom the Rabbis forbade relations – such as his wife's great-grandmother or great-granddaughter – then he is liable to Malkut for transgressing the Rabbis' edict.

Perempuan diumpamakan seperti gelombang, dan laki laki digambarkan seperti karet gelang. Sebuah ilustrasi yg menurut sebagian kena dalam karakter utama masing-masing, memberikan gambaran yg khas dari keduanya.

yevamot055_Karet_Aririm.pdf - Document for Daf 55 by Simon Wolf

In this episode of the Third Sector Podcast senior reporter Stephen Delahunty and news editor Andy Ricketts discuss whether charities face having to pay the Charity Commission for its services. It comes after Ian Karet, interim chair of the regulator, was questioned about the measure at the commission's annual public meeting last week. In response to a question about whether the commission had abandoned plans to introduce charges for its services, Karet said he could not say for certain the idea had been scrapped, but described it as a “political decision” that had more traction under both of his predecessors.Stephen and Andy look back over the history of this long-running story and chew over where it could go next. They also discuss the appointment of a new charities minister and in the Good News Bulletin discover the correct term for a baby porcupine and celebrate a major milestone for the online giving platform JustGiving. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

What is Karet? - Document for Daf 25 by Simon Wolf