Podcasts about Paschal

Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים – English

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 26, 2026 48:44

If one of the loaves of the two loaves for Shavuot or one of the sets of six loaves of the showbread become impure, are the others to be burned as well? Rabbi Yehuda holds that public offerings are all treated as one unit and therefore they are all disqualified and are burned. The rabbis disagree and permit them to be eaten. Rabbi Elazar limits their debate to a case where they became impure before the blood was sprinkled. According to Rav Papa, the debate centers on whether the tzitz atones for items that are to be eaten. If it atones for the bread, then the blood can be sprinkled and is effective to permit the other (pure) bread to be eaten. But if it does not atone for food items, the blood can be sprinkled, but since the bread was not complete at the time, it is forbidden to eat, as per Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in Menachot 9b. However, Rav Papa's explanation is rejected on three counts. First, Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis also disagree in a case where the item that was to be offered on the altar becomes impure. Second, Rabbi Yehuda's position by the Paschal sacrifice, as appears in the braita, demonstrates that the phrase "the communal offerings are not divided" has no connection at all to the tzitz atoning. Third, the Mishna states explicitly the reason for Rabbi Yehuda's position and it is because the communal offerings are not divided and not on account of the tzitz. In a thanksgiving (toda) offering, if there is a pigul thought about the meat, the breads are disqualified, but a pigul thought about the bread only disqualifies the bread, but not the meat. The same holds true for the two sheep regarding the accompanying breads. After attempting one explanation, which is rejected, the Gemara explains the reasoning behind the law – the bread comes on account of the animal offering, but the animal offering does not come on account of the bread. Both cases were necessary to bring, as one may have thought that the sheep and the accompanying breads are waved together and therefore might be considered completely one unit, but they are not. There are three different versions of a question Rabbi Elazar asked Rav. The first version: if one slaughters the animal for the toda offering with a thought to eat a half an olive-bulk of the meat and half an olive-bulk of the bread, do they combine to make the bread pigul? Rav answers that it is. The Gemara asks why a kal v'chomer reasoning isn't employed to lead us to say that the bread wouldn't be pigul, as it cannot even make the meat pigul. A difficulty is raised against that suggestion as in a similar situation regarding mixed breeds in a vineyard, that kind of kal v'chomer isn't used. But they distinguish between the two cases, resolving the difficulty. The second version has the same type question asked but regarding the two sheep offering and the accompanying breads. The third version of the question is about the meaning of someone's language if they slaughtered the sheep to "eat an olive-bulk of its friend tomorrow." Does "its friend" refer to the other sheep (it would not be pigul, as the sheep is a "permitter") or to the bread (it would be pigul as bread is not a "permitter")? Rav brings a tannaitic source which makes it clear that the meaning was the other sheep. The Gemara rejects this proof of Rav. What is the relationship between the sacrifice and its libations regarding pigul? Rabbi Meir holds that if the libations were already placed in a sanctified vessel and the sacrifice is brought with a pigul intent, the libations are disqualified as well. But a pigul thought regarding the libations only disqualifies the libation, not the sacrifice. In the Tosefta Zevachim 5:1, the rabbis bring counter arguments to Rabbi Meir. First, they view the libations as completely separate and do not agree with Rabbi Meir that they become disqualified if the sacrifice becomes pigul, as they can be brought up to ten days later. When Rabbi Meir qualifies his ruling to a case where the libations are brought together with the offering, the rabbis continue with another claim. Since the libations can be designated to a different sacrifice, that proves that they are not inherently connected. Rava explains that Rabbi Meir must have held that the libations cannot be designated for a different sacrifice. In the Tosefta, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree as well regarding the oil of the leper – if the guilt offering becomes pigul, does the oil become pigul as well, and the same discussion ensues.

shavuot rav paschal gemara mishna rava shvat rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar rabbi yochanan tosefta

Menachot 15 - January 26, 8 Shvat

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 26, 2026 48:44

If one of the loaves of the two loaves for Shavuot or one of the sets of six loaves of the showbread become impure, are the others to be burned as well? Rabbi Yehuda holds that public offerings are all treated as one unit and therefore they are all disqualified and are burned. The rabbis disagree and permit them to be eaten. Rabbi Elazar limits their debate to a case where they became impure before the blood was sprinkled. According to Rav Papa, the debate centers on whether the tzitz atones for items that are to be eaten. If it atones for the bread, then the blood can be sprinkled and is effective to permit the other (pure) bread to be eaten. But if it does not atone for food items, the blood can be sprinkled, but since the bread was not complete at the time, it is forbidden to eat, as per Rabbi Yochanan's opinion in Menachot 9b. However, Rav Papa's explanation is rejected on three counts. First, Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis also disagree in a case where the item that was to be offered on the altar becomes impure. Second, Rabbi Yehuda's position by the Paschal sacrifice, as appears in the braita, demonstrates that the phrase "the communal offerings are not divided" has no connection at all to the tzitz atoning. Third, the Mishna states explicitly the reason for Rabbi Yehuda's position and it is because the communal offerings are not divided and not on account of the tzitz. In a thanksgiving (toda) offering, if there is a pigul thought about the meat, the breads are disqualified, but a pigul thought about the bread only disqualifies the bread, but not the meat. The same holds true for the two sheep regarding the accompanying breads. After attempting one explanation, which is rejected, the Gemara explains the reasoning behind the law – the bread comes on account of the animal offering, but the animal offering does not come on account of the bread. Both cases were necessary to bring, as one may have thought that the sheep and the accompanying breads are waved together and therefore might be considered completely one unit, but they are not. There are three different versions of a question Rabbi Elazar asked Rav. The first version: if one slaughters the animal for the toda offering with a thought to eat a half an olive-bulk of the meat and half an olive-bulk of the bread, do they combine to make the bread pigul? Rav answers that it is. The Gemara asks why a kal v'chomer reasoning isn't employed to lead us to say that the bread wouldn't be pigul, as it cannot even make the meat pigul. A difficulty is raised against that suggestion as in a similar situation regarding mixed breeds in a vineyard, that kind of kal v'chomer isn't used. But they distinguish between the two cases, resolving the difficulty. The second version has the same type question asked but regarding the two sheep offering and the accompanying breads. The third version of the question is about the meaning of someone's language if they slaughtered the sheep to "eat an olive-bulk of its friend tomorrow." Does "its friend" refer to the other sheep (it would not be pigul, as the sheep is a "permitter") or to the bread (it would be pigul as bread is not a "permitter")? Rav brings a tannaitic source which makes it clear that the meaning was the other sheep. The Gemara rejects this proof of Rav. What is the relationship between the sacrifice and its libations regarding pigul? Rabbi Meir holds that if the libations were already placed in a sanctified vessel and the sacrifice is brought with a pigul intent, the libations are disqualified as well. But a pigul thought regarding the libations only disqualifies the libation, not the sacrifice. In the Tosefta Zevachim 5:1, the rabbis bring counter arguments to Rabbi Meir. First, they view the libations as completely separate and do not agree with Rabbi Meir that they become disqualified if the sacrifice becomes pigul, as they can be brought up to ten days later. When Rabbi Meir qualifies his ruling to a case where the libations are brought together with the offering, the rabbis continue with another claim. Since the libations can be designated to a different sacrifice, that proves that they are not inherently connected. Rava explains that Rabbi Meir must have held that the libations cannot be designated for a different sacrifice. In the Tosefta, Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree as well regarding the oil of the leper – if the guilt offering becomes pigul, does the oil become pigul as well, and the same discussion ensues.

shavuot rav paschal gemara mishna rava shvat rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar rabbi yochanan tosefta

Winning Through Learning: Coach Van Paschal's Journey

Mind of a Football Coach

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 24, 2026 29:53

In this engaging conversation, Coach Van Paschal shares his journey as a football coach, emphasizing the importance of continuous learning and adapting strategies to fit the team's strengths. He discusses his experiences with different offensive schemes, particularly the double wing, and how he prepares his team for high-stakes games like the state championship. Coach Paschal also highlights the significance of physical training, defensive strategies, and his involvement in community service through mission trips. His insights provide valuable advice for young coaches starting their careers. Chapters 00:00 Introduction to Coach Van Paschal 02:56 The Journey of Learning and Adapting Offenses 05:59 Preparing for the State Championship Game 08:59 Practice Strategies and Physicality in Training 11:56 Offseason Training and Weightlifting Regimen 15:05 Defensive Strategies Against Traditional Offenses 17:59 Mission Trip to Belize and Community Involvement 22:09 Advice for Young Coaches Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

learning advice winning preparing belize mission trips physicality paschal learning coach

Bo: Slaughtering Ideas

Parsha Pick-Me-Up

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 22, 2026 4:52

How do we overcome false ideas and ideals? We slaughter them publicly. This is the purpose of the Paschal lamb and a great lesson for our time.

ideas paschal slaughtering

TNLA Green Report Podcast, Season 6, Episode 2: Employers' Biggest Legal Mistakes, Dustin Paschal, Simon Paschal PLLC

Green Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 16, 2026 31:12

Employers' Biggest Legal Mistakes Featuring Dustin Paschal, Simon Paschal PLLC | Live Podcast held at the TNLA Lone Star Hort Forum Employment law missteps can be costly. In this live podcast, attorney Dustin Paschal breaks down the most common legal mistakes employers make and how to avoid them. From hiring and termination to policies and compliance, gain practical guidance to reduce risk and protect your business in today's complex legal environment. Questions What are the most common legal mistakes employers are making right now? Where do businesses most often get into trouble with hiring or termination? How important are written policies in protecting employers from liability? What's one legal step employers can take today to reduce risk? Can employers legally terminate an employee based on posts made on their personal social media accounts, and what factors should they consider before taking action?

green mistakes legal employers pllc paschal report podcast

Gift Grub: Garron Noone Wants A Chocolate Cost Of Living Intervention

chocolate intervention world bank cost of living grub paschal dail garron

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 15, 2026 4:27

The Dail is back and there was plenty to get politicans talking about.Paschal's World Bank top-up and the rising costs of chocolate bars were top of the agenda!

TNLA Green Report Podcast, Season 5, Episode 6: Employers' Biggest Legal Mistakes Featuring Dustin Paschal, Simon Paschal PLLC

Green Report

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 12, 2026 31:12

Employment law missteps can be costly. In this live podcast, attorney Dustin Paschal breaks down the most common legal mistakes employers make and how to avoid them. From hiring and termination to policies and compliance, gain practical guidance to reduce risk and protect your business in today's complex legal environment.

green mistakes legal employment employers pllc paschal report podcast

Zevachim 118 - Shabbat January 10, 21 Tevet

Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים – English

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 9, 2026 45:47

The Gemara explains the basis of the disagreement in the braita between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and how the second position of the Rabbis differs from the first position in the name of the rabbis in that same braita. Rabbi Shimon's source in the Torah for his view limiting the communal offerings brought in Gilgal is a verse in Yehoshua 5:10, which describes the Jews bringing the Paschal offering just a few days after crossing the Jordan River into the Land of Israel. The reason the structure of Shilo was built with stone walls while its ceiling was only a curtain is derived from seemingly contradictory verses - some referring to Shilo as a "house" and others as a "tent." Four rabbis each cite a different verse to explain the law that during the period when the Tabernacle stood in Shilo, kodshim kalim and maaser sheni could be eaten anywhere within sight of Shilo. There is also a debate about whether the Tabernacle in Shilo was located in the territory of Yosef or Binyamin. A braita discusses how many years the Tabernacle remained in each location and explains the calculations: thirty-nine years in the desert, fourteen in Gilgal, fifty-seven in Nov and Givon, and three hundred sixty-nine in Shilo.

israel land jews torah tabernacle shabbat jordan river rabbis gilgal paschal yehoshua shilo gemara binyamin tevet rabbi shimon rabbi yehuda

Zevachim 118 - Shabbat January 10, 21 Tevet

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 9, 2026 45:47

The Gemara explains the basis of the disagreement in the braita between Rabbi Yehuda and the Rabbis, and how the second position of the Rabbis differs from the first position in the name of the rabbis in that same braita. Rabbi Shimon's source in the Torah for his view limiting the communal offerings brought in Gilgal is a verse in Yehoshua 5:10, which describes the Jews bringing the Paschal offering just a few days after crossing the Jordan River into the Land of Israel. The reason the structure of Shilo was built with stone walls while its ceiling was only a curtain is derived from seemingly contradictory verses - some referring to Shilo as a "house" and others as a "tent." Four rabbis each cite a different verse to explain the law that during the period when the Tabernacle stood in Shilo, kodshim kalim and maaser sheni could be eaten anywhere within sight of Shilo. There is also a debate about whether the Tabernacle in Shilo was located in the territory of Yosef or Binyamin. A braita discusses how many years the Tabernacle remained in each location and explains the calculations: thirty-nine years in the desert, fourteen in Gilgal, fifty-seven in Nov and Givon, and three hundred sixty-nine in Shilo.

israel land jews torah tabernacle shabbat jordan river rabbis gilgal paschal yehoshua shilo gemara binyamin tevet rabbi shimon rabbi yehuda

St Seraphim of Sarov (1833)

Saint of the Day

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 2, 2026

"Saint Seraphim was born in the town of Kursk in 1759. From tender childhood he was under the protection of the most holy Mother of God, who, when he was nine years old, appeared to him in a vision, and through her icon of Kursk, healed him from a grave sickness from which he had not been expected to recover. At the age of nineteen he entered the monastery of Sarov, where he amazed all with his obedience, his lofty asceticism, and his great humility. In 1780 the Saint was stricken with a sickness which he manfully endured for three years, until our Lady the Theotokos healed him, appearing to him with the Apostles Peter and John. He was tonsured a monk in 1786, being named for the holy Hieromartyr Seraphim, Bishop of Phanarion (Dec. 4), and was ordained deacon a year later. In his unquenchable love for God, he continually added labours to labours, increasing in virtue and prayer with titan strides. Once, during the Divine Liturgy of Holy and Great Thursday he was counted worthy of a vision of our Lord Jesus Christ, Who appeared encompassed by the heavenly hosts. After this dread vision, he gave himself over to greater labours. "In 1794, Saint Seraphim took up the solitary life in a cell in the forest. This period of extreme asceticism lasted some fifteen years, until 1810. It was at this time that he took upon himself one of the greatest feats of his life. Assailed with despondency and a storm of contrary thoughts raised by the enemy of our salvation, the Saint passed a thousand nights on a rock, continuing in prayer until God gave him complete victory over the enemy. On another occasion, he was assaulted by robbers, who broke his chest and his head with their blows, leaving him almost dead. Here again, he began to recover after an appearance of the most Holy Theotokos, who came to him with the Apostles Peter and John, and pointing to Saint Seraphim, uttered these awesome words, 'This is one of my kind.' "In 1810, at the age of fifty, weakened by his more than human struggles, Saint Seraphim returned to the monastery for the third part of his ascetical labours, in which he lived as a recluse, until 1825. For the first five years of his reclusion, he spoke to no one at all, and little is known of this period. After five years, he began receiving visitors little by little, giving counsel and consolation to ailing souls. In 1825, the most holy Theotokos appeared to the Saint and revealed to him that it was pleasing to God that he fully end his reclusion; from this time the number of people who came to see him grew daily. It was also at the command of the holy Virgin that he undertook the spiritual direction of the Diveyevo Convent. He healed bodily ailments, foretold things to come, brought hardened sinners to repentance, and saw clearly the secrets of the heart of those who came to him. Through his utter humility and childlike simplicity, his unrivalled ascetical travails, and his angel-like love for God, he ascended to the holiness and greatness of the ancient God-bearing Fathers and became, like Anthony for Egypt, the physician for the whole Russian land. In all, the most holy Theotokos appeared to him twelve times in his life. The last was on Annunciation, 1831, to announce to him that he would soon enter into his rest. She appeared to him accompanied by twelve virgins martyrs and monastic saints with Saint John the Baptist and Saint John the Theologian. With a body ailing and broken from innumerable hardships, and an unspotted soul shining with the light of Heaven, the Saint lived less than two years after this, falling asleep in peace on January 2, 1833, chanting Paschal hymns. On the night of his repose, the righteous Philaret of the Glinsk Hermitage beheld his soul ascending to Heaven in light. Because of the universal testimony to the singular holiness of his life, and the seas of miracles that he performed both in life and after death, his veneration quickly spread beyond the boundaries of the Russian Empire to every corner of the earth. See also July 19." (Great Horologion) July 19 is the commemoration of the uncovering of St Seraphim's holy relics, which was attended by Tsar Nicholas II. Saint Seraphim's life became a perpetual celebration of Pascha: in his later years he dressed in a white garment, greeted everyone, regardless of the season, with "Christ is Risen!" and chanted the Pascha service every day of the year

Is Your Light Still Burning? | Peace on Earth | Day 5 of Christmas

All Saints Parish - Sunday Homilies Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 29, 2025 2:07

Is your light still on? On this fifth day of Christmas, Fr. Jonathan Meyer reflects on the Gospel of the Presentation of Jesus in the Temple and the witness of Simeon — reminding us that Jesus is the Light of the world. From the candles carried on February 2nd, to the baptismal candle entrusted to us at the beginning of our faith journey, and finally to the Paschal candle lit at our funeral — the flame tells the story of a life meant to shine. Christmas is not over. The light is not meant to go out. And we are still called to shine. In the midst of darkness, coldness, and discouragement, ask yourself: ➡️ Is my light still burning? ➡️ Am I allowing Christ's light to shine through me? Let us pray for the grace to keep the flame alive — not just during Christmas, but every day.

christmas jesus christ peace gospel temple burning presentation earth day simeon peace on earth paschal jonathan meyer

Non-Fiction Books Of The Year With Paschal Donohoe And Lise Hand

The Last Word with Matt Cooper

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 19, 2025 26:46

Paschal Donohoe, Managing Director of the World Bank and journalist Lise Hand return to give their non-fiction recommendations of the year. Their choices are below. To catch the full conversation, press the 'play' button on this page.Lise's choices1. Careless People: Sarah Wynn-Williams2. The Secret Life of Leinster House: Gavan Reilly3. I'm Glad You Asked Me That: Terry Prone 4. When the Going Was Good: An Editor's Adventures During the Last Golden Age of Magazines: Graydon Carter5. Kitchen Confidential: Anthony Bourdain (25th anniversary ed.) Paschal's choices1 A Short History of America by Simon Jenkins.2 The World's Worst Bet: How the Globalization Gamble Went Wrong.3 Breakneck by Dan Wang4 The Thinking Machine by Stephen Witt5 Speaking My Mind by Leo Varadkar6. Love in a Time of Politics by Katherine Zaponne

america love time world politics managing directors world bank secret life short history paschal nonfiction books breakneck paschal donohoe simon jenkins last golden age

Readings and Homily: Fr. Paschal

readings homily all saints paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 29, 2025 15:00

All Saints of the Seraphic Order (Feast)

Gift Grub: Simon Harris Needs Paschal To Share The Passwords

finance minister passwords world bank grub paschal simon harris paschal donohoe

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 27, 2025 5:14

On this morning's Gift Grub, Ian Dempsey caught up with newly appointed Minister for Finance, Simon Harris. Simon has a question for Paschal Donohoe, who is already knee deep in World Bank business. Hit play now to hear the episode in full.

Readings and Homily: Fr. Paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 25, 2025 15:00

Weekday

Catch Up with Louise McSharry

News Catch-Up: Bye Paschal, Trump & Mamdani 4eva and AI Cop On

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2025 54:18

To support the podcast and access bonus episodes, join the community on Patreon here. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

donald trump cops acast paschal 4eva

Gift Grub: Paschal Is Gone, Will Gerry Hutch Step In?

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 24, 2025 3:29

Paschal Donohoe officially starts his new role at the World Bank today, leaving his Dublin Central seat open for contenders. Who will get the gig? Gerry Hutch has some thoughts on it. Hit play now to hear the episode in full.

world bank grub paschal paschal donohoe gerry hutch

Readings and Homily: Fr. Paschal

presentation readings homily paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2025 15:00

The Presentation of the Blessed Virgin Mary (Memorial)

Is Simon Harris fit for the role of Minister for Finance?

Irish Times Inside Politics

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2025 48:05

Ellen Coyne and Pat Leahy join Hugh Linehan to look back on the week in politics:· As Paschal Donohoe departs for pastures new at the World Bank, will his absence weaken Government? And does Simon Harris possess the right skillset for the role of Minister for Finance? It might not matter if the qualified doctors who have run the Department of Health are anything to go by. · Paschal leaving has led to a Cabinet reshuffle with Fine Gael deputy leader Helen McEntee becoming the first woman to serve as the Minister responsible for both foreign affairs and defence. She will inherit many issues in need of urgent attention, not least the progression of the Occupied Territories Bill. · And the Oireachtas transport committee was told on Wednesday that Dublin's planned MetroLink will need about 8,000 workers for its construction. Speaking to RTÉ radio, transportation expert Brian Caulfield suggested that “something like an Olympic village” would be necessary to house workers on the project. Plus, the panel picks their favourite Irish Times pieces of the week:· Emerson Newton on how the Left are agitating for a border poll when conditions are far from ideal, and Diarmaid Ferriter on why authenticity matters more than spin in politics. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

health olympic games speaking government left finance minister acast dublin cabinet world bank rt irish times paschal fine gael simon harris oireachtas metrolink pat leahy helen mcentee diarmaid ferriter ellen coyne hugh linehan

Gift Grub: Paschal's Last Day

ireland world bank last day grub paschal paschal donohoe

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 21, 2025 2:32

It's Paschal Donohoe's last day in Ireland before he heads off to the World Bank. He called in to chat to his constituent Alison Curtis to say goodbye! Hit play now to hear the episode in full.

The Government's Paschal Problem

The Group Chat

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 20, 2025 45:37

This week on The Group Chat:Paschal Donohoe's departure prompts a partial reshuffle, but how big of a blow is it for the Government?Ivan Yates defends giving training and commentary on the presidential election. Plus, following the play-off draw that sees the Republic of Ireland away to Czechia, is it too soon to dream? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

government ireland acast republic czechia paschal ivan yates

Readings and Homily: Fr. Paschal

readings homily ordinary time paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 16, 2025 15:00

Thirty-Third Sunday in Ordinary Time

Navigating the New Industrial Landscape: Power, Labor, and Location Strategy

Industrial Advisors

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 14, 2025 20:53

Navigating Corporate America to Commercial Real Estate: Mark Paschal's Journey In this episode of the Industrial Advisors podcast, hosts Bill Condon and Kyle Back sit down with Mark Paschal, the Senior Vice President of National Build-to-Suit at SunCap Property Group. Mark shares his unique career path starting from his days as a football player at UNC, through his diverse experiences in corporate America, and his eventual shift into the real estate sector. He elaborates on the importance of relationship-building, the impact of technology in real estate, and how SunCap differentiates itself in the competitive build-to-suit market. Paschal also discusses market trends, the challenges of power and labor, and his optimistic outlook for the future of industrial real estate. The conversation provides insightful takeaways on the dynamic landscape of corporate real estate development. 00:00 Introduction and Guest Background 01:32 Career Journey and Early Challenges 03:36 Joining SunCap Property Group 05:48 SunCap's Relationship with FedEx Ground 06:48 Client Relationships and Business Strategy 13:23 Market Trends and Future Outlook 19:14 Closing Thoughts and Final Questions

america relationships strategy navigating labor landscape location senior vice president industrial suit unc business strategy closing thoughts market trends career journey client relationships paschal bill condon final questions

Zevachim 60 - November 13, 22 Cheshvan

Daf Yomi for Women – דף יומי לנשים – English

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 13, 2025 46:56

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.

jerusalem temple babylonians rav paschal cheshvan rava rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar rabbi yosi

Zevachim 60 - November 13, 22 Cheshvan

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 13, 2025 46:56

In Zevachim 59, a difficulty was raised against Rav's position that a sacrifice slaughtered while the altar was damaged is disqualified. The contradiction came from a statement of Rav that incense could be burned even when the altar was removed. It was resolved by suggesting that just as Rava explained, Rabbi Yehuda distinguished between blood and burning (and required the altar for blood), so too Rav distinguished between blood and burning the incense (and required the altar to be complete for slaughtering and sprinkling the blood). Where did Rava make that statement? A lengthy argument between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi is brought to provide background. Then a proof is offered for Rava's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda, based on Rabbi Yehuda's suggestion regarding the blood from the Paschal sacrifices that spilled on the floor, but the proof is rejected. Rabbi Elazar brings a source to derive the requirement for the altar to be complete to permit eating the remains of the meal offerings and other food of kodashim kodashim. Is a complete altar required for eating kodashim kalim? Abaye brings a braita of Rabbi Yishmael proving that the second tithe cannot be eaten in Jerusalem when there is no Temple. He first attempts to derive it from the firstborn by logical inference, but then derives it from a juxtaposition (heikesh). Abaye's explanation of Rabbi Yishmael leads to the understanding that kodashim kalim cannot be eaten when there is no altar. Rabbi Yirmia vehemently disagrees with Abaye, calling him a 'stupid Babylonian,' due to a contradiction between two braitot, which he resolves by differentiating between kodshai kodashim and kodashim kalim regarding this law.

jerusalem temple babylonians rav paschal cheshvan rava rabbi yehuda rabbi elazar rabbi yosi

Readings and Homily: Fr. Paschal

tours readings homily paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 11, 2025 15:00

St. Martin of Tours, Bishop (Memorial)

Readings and homily: Fr. Paschal

readings homily paschal charles borromeo

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 4, 2025 10:00

St. Charles Borromeo, Bishop (Memorial)

Readings and homily: Fr. Paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 28, 2025 12:00

Saints Simon and Jude, Apostles (Feast)

Readings and homily: Fr. Paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 24, 2025 15:00

Weekday

Zevachim 36 - October 20, 28 Tishrei

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 20, 2025 47:40

This month’s learning is dedicated in memory of Rabbi Dr. Raymond Harari z”l, on the occasion of his first yahrzeit. Rabbi Harari was my first Gemara teacher and the one who sparked my love for learning Gemara. Over the course of his distinguished career as an educator, as principal of the Yeshiva of Flatbush, and as community rabbi, he inspired thousands of students with his wisdom, warmth, and unwavering commitment to Torah. As his wife Vicky beautifully expressed, Rabbi Harari embodied six core values that he cultivated with deep intentionality throughout his life: hard work, gratitude, forgiveness, patience, focusing on families and our priorities, and the inclusion of women in halakhic Judaism. Yehi zichro baruch. The Mishna presents a dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis regarding a thought during the slaughtering of a sacrifice to leave the blood or the parts designated for burning until the next day. Rabbi Yehuda rules that such a thought disqualifies the offering, while the rabbis disagree, arguing that the thought does not pertain to “consumption,” and therefore does not invalidate the sacrifice. The Mishna further clarifies that only specific types of improper intent disqualify a sacrifice: namely, intent involving “outside of time,” “outside of location,” or “not for the sake of the correct sacrifice” and the latter only in the cases of sin offerings and the Paschal offering. It then enumerates several examples of thoughts that do not disqualify the offering, such as intending that an impure or uncircumcised person will eat the meat, or that the blood will be placed on the wrong altar or in the wrong location on the altar. Rabbi Yehuda’s position is initially derived from the verse in Vayikra (Leviticus) 7:15, which states “lo yaniach” - “do not leave it” - referring to meat left beyond its designated time. However, the Gemara ultimately rejects this derivation, noting that it cannot be applied to thoughts of “outside of location.” Additionally, a braita clarifies that Rabbi Yehuda’s reasoning is based on logical inference: if physically leaving the blood beyond its designated time or place disqualifies the sacrifice, then merely intending to do so should also disqualify it. Rabbi Yehuda does not extend his logic to the other cases listed in the Mishna, such as consumption by an impure or uncircumcised person, because even if these acts were actually carried out, the sacrifice itself would not be invalidated. The Gemara analyzes each of the cases mentioned in the Mishna and explains why none of them would disqualify the offering. Rabbi Abba explains that although Rabbi Yehuda disqualifies a sacrifice when there is intent to leave the blood until the next day, if a pigul thought is later introduced, such as intending that the meat be eaten after its designated time, the sacrifice becomes pigul, despite the earlier disqualifying thought. Rava attempts to support Rabbi Abba’s statement, but his proof is ultimately rejected. Rav Huna raises a challenge to Rabbi Abba’s position, which remains unresolved. Rav Chisda presents two statements, both of which Rava attempts to prove, though each proof is refuted. The first states that if one intends for impure individuals to eat the sacrifice on the following day, the offering becomes pigul and is punishable by karet, even though impure individuals are already prohibited from eating it. The second concerns a Paschal offering that was not roasted, or a thanksgiving offering brought without its accompanying loaves. Although the meat of these offerings is forbidden to be eaten in such cases, if an impure person consumes them, it is still punishable by karet. Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagree regarding the minimum number of blood applications required on the altar for a sin offering. Both agree that for all sacrifices offered on the outer altar, except for the sin offering, if only one blood application is performed, the sacrifice is still valid. However, they differ on the sin offering itself: Beit Shammai maintains that at least two applications are required, while Beit Hillel holds that one suffices. In a case where only one application is required, if the first application is performed properly and a pigul thought (i.e., intent to eat the meat after its designated time) occurs during the second application, the sacrifice is not disqualified. However, if the first application is performed with a pigul thought and the second is done properly, the sacrifice is rendered pigul and is punishable by karet, since the disqualifying thought occurred during the essential act that permits the meat to be eaten. In contrast, for sacrifices offered on the inner altar, all blood applications are essential. Therefore, if a disqualifying thought, such as intending to eat or burn the meat beyond its designated time, occurs during only part of the applications, the sacrifice is disqualified. However, it is not considered pigul and is not punishable by karet, because pigul status only applies when the improper intent accompanies the entire act that permits the consumption of the meat.

judaism torah yeshiva paschal flatbush rabbi dr gemara mishna tishrei rava rabbi yehuda yehi beit hillel beit shammai

Zevachim 35 - October 19, 27 Tishrei

paschal gemara mishna tishrei rabbi akiva rabbi yehuda azara rabbi elazar

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 19, 2025 49:17

During the Paschal sacrifice, the drain in the floor of the Azara was plugged to ensure that any spilled blood would be collected. Rabbi Yehuda and the rabbis offer different explanations for this practice. Rabbi Yehuda says the blood was collected and placed on the altar in case some of the blood from the sacrifices had spilled and had not yet been brought to the altar. The rabbis explain that it was to demonstrate the dedication of the kohanim, who stood knee-deep in blood as they performed their service. Each opinion faces challenges. Regarding Rabbi Yehuda, the Gemara asks how the blood could be valid for the altar if it had not been collected in a sanctified vessel. After resolving this, another issue is raised: the dam hatamtzit, the residual internal blood, might nullify the dam hanefesh, the lifeblood that exits during slaughter and is valid for the altar. Regarding the rabbis, the Gemara questions whether the accumulated blood would create a chatzitza, an interposition between the kohanim’s feet and the floor, potentially invalidating their service. It also asks whether the blood-soaked garments would be rendered unfit for priestly service. All these objections are ultimately resolved. The laws of pigul apply only to parts of the animal designated for consumption or burning on the altar. If a priest has a pigul thought, such as intending to eat or burn a part of the sacrifice beyond its permitted time, it only renders the sacrifice pigul if the thought concerns a part meant to be eaten or burned. Non-edible or non-sacrificial parts, such as the hide, tendons, horns, and similar items, are not subject to pigul. In a female animal, a thought regarding the fetus, placenta, or eggs does not render the sacrifice pigul. If a sacrifice becomes pigul, consuming the milk or eggs does not incur karet. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis disagree about whether a pigul thought regarding a non-sacrificial item, such as intending to eat something not meant to be eaten or burn something not meant to be burned, can render the offering pigul. Rabbi Eliezer is more stringent, while the rabbis are lenient. Rabbi Elazar adds that while a thought about a fetus or similar part does not independently render the sacrifice pigul, if the animal itself becomes pigul due to improper intent, then those parts, like the fetus, are also considered pigul. Three sources, including the Mishna under discussion, are brought to support Rabbi Elazar’s position. Attempts to refute his view are made, but ultimately only an inference from our Mishna stands as a conclusive proof in his favor. A Mishna in Zevachim 84a records a dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the rabbis regarding a blemished animal that was mistakenly brought to the altar. Rabbi Akiva holds that if the animal has already been placed on the altar, it is not removed. The rabbis disagree, requiring its removal. The Gemara qualifies Rabbi Akiva’s leniency with three limitations: the ruling applies only to certain types of blemishes; if the blemish was present before the animal was sanctified, it must be removed; and a female animal designated for a burnt offering is also removed. Rabbi Zeira raises a challenge to the third limitation based on a braita previously cited in a discussion concerning Rabbi Eliezer. This challenge is ultimately resolved.

Readings and homily: Fr. Paschal

readings antioch homily ignatius paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 17, 2025 13:00

St. Ignatius of Antioch, Bishop, Martyr (Memorial)

Readings and homily: Fr. Paschal

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 14, 2025 13:00

Weekday

Zevachim 25 - October 9, 17 Tishrei