Podcasts about sages

Parashat Shelah is famous for the story of Het Ha'meragelim – the sin of the spies. Moshe sent twelve men – one representative from each tribe – to survey the Land of Israel and report back to the people, and when the spies returned, they persuaded Beneh Yisrael that they could not conquer the land, for which thy were severely punished. The Torah makes a point of mentioning that before Moshe sent the spies, he renamed one of them – his faithful disciple, Hoshea – changing his name from "Hoshea" to "Yehoshua" ( 13:16). Rashi explains that Moshe gave Yehoshua this new name as a prayer that he would be protected from the sinister plot of the other spies. The name "Yehoshua" can be read as a combination of the words "Y-ah Yoshi'acha" – "G-d shall save you." This was Moshe's prayer that Yehoshua would not be influenced by his peers who would decide to speak negatively about the Land of Israel and sow despair among the nation. We must ask, why did Moshe pray on behalf of only Yehoshua? If he anticipated the likelihood that the spies would betray their mission, and seek to dissuade the people from entering into the land, then why didn't he pray that they should all be protected from this grave mistake? The Lubavitcher Rebbe (Rav Menachem Mendel Schneerson, 1902-1994) answered this question by noting Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel's translation of this verse. Targum Yonatan writes that Moshe changed Yehoshua's name because he noticed "Invatanuteh" – Yehoshua's unique humility. Somehow, Yehoshua's especially humble character necessitated this prayer, that he should be protected from sin as he embarked on this mission. The Rebbe explained that normally, one cannot pray for another's Yir'at Shamayim (fear of Heaven), that the person should do the right thing and avoid wrongdoing. The Sages famously taught us, "Ha'kol Bi'ydeh Shamayim Hutz Mi'yir'at Shamayim" – "Everything is in the hand of Heaven, except the fear of Heaven." We can and should ask Hashem for that which lies beyond our control. Religious observance, however, is our responsibility. We cannot ask Hashem to make somebody religiously committed – because he needs to motivate himself to be committed. But if so, then Moshe's prayer for his disciple is very difficult to understand. How could Moshe pray that Yehoshua do the right thing, if one cannot pray for somebody else to avoid sin? The Rebbe answered that we can pray for somebody's spiritual success if that person is already investing effort to achieve spiritual success. For example, we cannot pray to Hashem to help somebody wake up in time for Shaharit if he goes to sleep late and doesn't bother to set an alarm clock. If, however, a person who has this weakness – often failing to get up on time – makes an effort to improve, such as by going to sleep at a reasonable hour and setting an alarm clock, then it is certainly appropriate to pray that his efforts should succeed. And this is true of all areas of religious life – once a person is making a genuine effort to succeed, then he – and others – can pray that those efforts should bring the desired results. With this in mind, we can return to Yehoshua and the spies. The Rebbe explains that Moshe sent the spies on a fact-finding mission. Their job was to objectively report the information, to tell what they saw, without giving any interpretation or offering an opinion based on that information. It was their job to determine the facts – and it was Moshe's job, and only Moshe's job, to reach decisions based on those facts. The spies' sin was arrogantly usurping Moshe's role. After they reported the facts, they gave their assessment about the prospects of capturing Eretz Yisrael – an assessment which wasn't theirs to make. They decided that their opinion was more important and more authoritative than that of Moshe Rabbenu – and this was their sin. Before Moshe sent the spies, he was well aware of this danger. He knew of the natural tendency that people have to form opinions about things which are for the experts to decide, to assume they know better, to feel overly confident in their perspectives, their ideas and their impressions. But he could pray only for Yehoshua – because he saw that Yehoshua worked on his quality of humility. Upon seeing how Yehoshua made a conscious effort to remain humble, Moshe prayed that these efforts should succeed, that Yehoshua would remain humble and not overstep his bounds. Moshe could not pray for the other spies, because he did not see them working on their Midda (quality) of humility. He therefore prayed only for Yehoshua, his student who worked to live humbly, asking that these efforts should protect him from the arrogant tendency to give opinions that shouldn't be given.

Welcome to our Daily Bitachon series. We are at the end of Sha'ar HaBechina [The Gate of Reflection], where the author tells us a beautiful mashal [parable] to show the greatness of Hashem. He compares us to a child who was raised in a jail cell and has no concept of the king who runs an entire empire; the child thinks the whole world is just that jail cell. And that is us in this world. We only have a small glimpse of what the real picture is and what God can truly do, living here on this small little planet. The Chovos HaLevavos tells us to develop this mashal . And we will do just that, based on the Chafetz Chaim in his sefer Shemiras HaLashon (Volume 1, in the section called Sha'ar HaTvuna , Chapter 10). He gives the following mashal to explain how we can rely on Hashem even when we are living in an era where we don't clearly see Hashem's control—where it looks like the world is running wild. It's fascinating how he uses this mashal to build our Bitachon [trust], because ultimately, as we've said, our understanding of the world is what leads us to serve Him, which ultimately brings us to Bitachon . And here we go: There was a king who had total global control. He was a superpower, and he ruled his kingdom beautifully. He had more than enough food and sustenance to provide for his entire kingdom, for all of his generals, and for everyone under his rule in a highly respectable way. Yet, as can happen on a small, isolated island with a tiny group of people, a few servants decided to stage a minor rebellion out of pure arrogance. The king heard about it. Okay, his men would handle it, no problem. Right after the news reached the king, he went for a walk in his vineyard, not feeling threatened by this rebellion at all. While walking, he heard a beautiful bird chirping. It looked nice, it sounded beautiful, and he told one of his servants, "I'd like to have that bird in my palace so we can listen to its beautiful singing." And so they did; they put the bird in a cage and brought it to the king's palace, where it sang in a beautiful, sweet tone. One foolish man saw the bird and said, "You poor bird, I feel so bad for you. You know, you're going into the king's palace because you have a beautiful voice, but you're really going to suffer there because you won't have any food." The bird asked, "Why not?" The man replied, "Because I heard that there are people rebelling against the king!" Another, smarter servant overheard this and said, "What a fool! Our king rules the entire world. He has endless treasure houses. Taking care of this bird is a joke to him. And he loves the chirping of this bird! Do you really think he can't manage to find a few morsels of grain every day to sustain this bird just because there are a few rebels in some far-off little town?" That is the mashal . For the nimshal [the lesson], the Chafetz Chaim says that this analogy doesn't even compare one-in-a-million to what is really going on. God created this physical world, but He also created the upper worlds. The spiritual realm consists of many worlds. There are four basic spiritual worlds: our world is called Olam HaAsiya [the World of Action], and above it are the worlds of Yetzira , Beriah , and Atzilut . We aren't kabbalists to go into exactly what all these levels mean. But the point he is making is that when we see a "rebellion" happening down here in this tiny physical world, we are viewing everything through limited, physical eyes. We don't see what is truly going on; we have no idea of the full scope of the universe. And we are like that little bird—that tiny, teeny bird—worrying, "How is the king going to take care of me?" Who is the bird? The bird is us, the Jewish people, whose voices God loves to hear. As the verse says, " Yonati bechagvei hasela "—"My dove in the clefts of the rock." He wants to take care of us! Yet, we worry because we see rebellions going on, because there is Hamas, because there is Iraq, Iran, Lebanon, and Hezbollah. We worry because we see a few rebels. Do you know what our King can do? The Chafetz Chaim says we should be more shocked at our own anxious attitude than at the attitude of that foolish servant telling the bird that the king can't feed him. That is huge. He says that all we need to do, every single day, is think about this. When we think about this, it will strengthen our Bitachon . And again, this is exactly what Sha'ar HaBechina is all about—seeing God's power and understanding how He is completely unlimited, and using that clarity to reach Bitachon . I will not stop stressing this point: You cannot jump to Sha'ar HaBitachon without going through Sha'ar HaBechina . You must first appreciate who God is, and then you can rely on Him. And even then, you can't just jump straight to relying on Him; you have to first commit yourself to serving Him. Your first reaction to God's greatness isn't supposed to be, "Wow, look how strong God is, look what I can get from Him!" No. It should be, "Look how strong God is—what do I have to do to reciprocate?" And how do we reciprocate? How will we find the tools and abilities to do so? That is where Bitachon comes in: rely on Him, and He will take care of you. The absolute fundamental of Bitachon is that Hashem takes care of His servants . You need to be a servant first. This is the path of Sha'ar HaBechina . That is what the author is telling us. We have a clear track. When you get to the end of this gate, you have to realize what the next step is, but never forget the foundation. As we say, you constantly have to go over this foundation again and again, every single day. He notes that this is the deeper meaning of the verse in Yeshayahu (26:4): " Ki b'Y-H Hashem tzur olamim ." Chazal [the Sages] tell us that God created the worlds with two letters of His Name: a Yud , which created Olam HaBa [the World to Come], and a Heh , which created Olam HaZeh [this world]. What does this verse say? Once we know that Hashem created both worlds and that He is a tzur —a rock, meaning He is completely reliable, the rock in whom we find refuge ( tzur achasayu bo )—the verse commands us: " Bitchu v'Hashem adei ad "—"Trust in Hashem forever and ever." What does "always and forever" mean? The Chafetz Chaim explains that "always" means even in our times, when it looks like a massive rebellion is going on. Rely on Him always! Why? Because you know how powerful He is: " Ki b'Y-H Hashem tzur olamim "—because God is the Rock of worlds , plural. Let's repeat this verse one more time: Bitchu v'Hashem adei ad . Rely on Hashem forever and ever. Why? Because Hashem is the Rock of the worlds. He is the Rock, meaning He is reliable—the ultimate Rock of Gibraltar. He is reliable, and He is the Creator of all the worlds. Regardless of what it looks like is happening downstairs, it is only a drop in the bucket. And from this, to quote the Chafetz Chaim: " Nuchel lehavin et godel habitachon she-yesh l'adam livtoach b'Hakadosh Baruch Hu "—"Through this, we can understand the immense scale of trust that a person must place in the Holy One, blessed be He."

What is the default assumption regarding a gentile's intent when an animal is slaughtered? The rabbis hold that we do not automatically assume a gentile intends it for idol worship unless he explicitly says so, while Rabbi Eliezer holds a gentile's default intent is for idol worship. Rabbi Yosi argues that even if he does intend it for idol worship, we do not say that one person's intent affects another person's act of slaughter. The Gemara presents two ways to explain this dispute and whether the principle of one person intending and another performing the action applies outside the Temple just as it does inside. What is the status of an animal if the slaughter was performed with the intent to perform a later part of the service, like throwing the blood or burning the fat, for idol worship? Rabbi Yochanan rules that the animal is disqualified because we can transfer intent from one action to another, and we learn the laws outside the Temple from the laws inside. Reish Lakish rules that it is permitted because we do not transfer intent from one action to another outside the Temple. The Gemara notes they hold the same argument regarding internal Temple sacrifices and l'shma intent, and then explains why it was necessary to state that they argue in both cases. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish from Rabbi Yosi's position in the Mishna, but is resolved. A braita is then brought to support Rabbi Yochanan's position. What is the law if someone performs shechita and only thinks about sprinkling the blood for idol worship after the slaughter is finished? The Gemara cites a case in Caesarea where the Sages did not rule whether it was forbidden or permitted. The issue is whether or not a later action or statement retroactively proves the initial intent. After attempting to connect their ruling with the rabbis' and Rabbi Eliezer's positions, that suggestion is rejected and they say it connects with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling. However, the Gemara tries to figure out which ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel it connects to. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosi, meaning the gentile's intent does not disqualify the Jew's shechita. The Gemara brings a story where gentiles gave animals to a Jewish butcher and stated the blood and fat were for them, and it was permitted. Rav Ashi qualifies that if a gentile gives money to a Jewish butcher under Rabbi Eliezer's view, it is only forbidden if the gentile is powerful enough that the butcher cannot refuse his intent.

What is the default assumption regarding a gentile's intent when an animal is slaughtered? The rabbis hold that we do not automatically assume a gentile intends it for idol worship unless he explicitly says so, while Rabbi Eliezer holds a gentile's default intent is for idol worship. Rabbi Yosi argues that even if he does intend it for idol worship, we do not say that one person's intent affects another person's act of slaughter. The Gemara presents two ways to explain this dispute and whether the principle of one person intending and another performing the action applies outside the Temple just as it does inside. What is the status of an animal if the slaughter was performed with the intent to perform a later part of the service, like throwing the blood or burning the fat, for idol worship? Rabbi Yochanan rules that the animal is disqualified because we can transfer intent from one action to another, and we learn the laws outside the Temple from the laws inside. Reish Lakish rules that it is permitted because we do not transfer intent from one action to another outside the Temple. The Gemara notes they hold the same argument regarding internal Temple sacrifices and l'shma intent, and then explains why it was necessary to state that they argue in both cases. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish from Rabbi Yosi's position in the Mishna, but is resolved. A braita is then brought to support Rabbi Yochanan's position. What is the law if someone performs shechita and only thinks about sprinkling the blood for idol worship after the slaughter is finished? The Gemara cites a case in Caesarea where the Sages did not rule whether it was forbidden or permitted. The issue is whether or not a later action or statement retroactively proves the initial intent. After attempting to connect their ruling with the rabbis' and Rabbi Eliezer's positions, that suggestion is rejected and they say it connects with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel's ruling. However, the Gemara tries to figure out which ruling of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel it connects to. Rav Yehuda says in the name of Shmuel that the halakha follows Rabbi Yosi, meaning the gentile's intent does not disqualify the Jew's shechita. The Gemara brings a story where gentiles gave animals to a Jewish butcher and stated the blood and fat were for them, and it was permitted. Rav Ashi qualifies that if a gentile gives money to a Jewish butcher under Rabbi Eliezer's view, it is only forbidden if the gentile is powerful enough that the butcher cannot refuse his intent.

EVEN MORE about this episode!Have you ever wondered why the same challenges, relationships, or lessons keep showing up in your life?In this episode, Julie Ryan and Vish Chatterji explore karma, past lives, Vedic astrology, soul purpose, and the hidden patterns influencing your journey.The conversation dives into reincarnation, intuition, karma, chakras, sacred sound, meditation, and practical daily practices that help quiet the mind and strengthen your connection to inner wisdom. Vish also shares how he transitioned from corporate leadership to spiritual teaching and why aligning with your soul's purpose can transform every area of life.Whether you're curious about past lives, searching for deeper meaning, or looking for tools to navigate life's challenges with greater clarity, this episode offers profound insights and practical wisdom for your spiritual journey.Guest Biography:Vish Chatterji is an executive coach, author, and entrepreneur who blends Eastern wisdom with Western achievement strategies to help people find greater balance, purpose, and success in life and work. With degrees in Mechanical Engineering and Business, and years of study in traditional Himalayan teachings and the Chopra lineage, Vish integrates yoga, meditation, Ayurveda, Jyotish (Vedic Astrology), and mindful leadership into his coaching. He is the author of The Business Casual Yogi, Take Charge of Your Body, Mind & Career, and Astrology Decoded: The Secret Science of India's Sages, and is passionate about helping others align their inner and outer worlds.Episode Chapters:(0:00:00) - Leadership as Spiritual Practice(0:04:52) - Karma and Past Life Patterns(0:16:38) - Vedic Astrology vs Western Astrology(0:32:15) - Ancient Knowledge Systems and the Rishi(0:42:47) - Intellect, Intuition, and the Planetary Archetypes(0:52:30) - Daily Practices for Spiritual Alignment➡️ Subscribe to Ask Julie Ryan YouTube➡️ Julie's Intuitive Trainings✏️ Ask Julie a Question!

Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Length: 1 hour 20 minutesSynopsis: This morning (6/5/26), in our last Friday morning Sefer Iyov series for women of the season, we concluded the Rambam's INITIAL presentation of the true view of hashgachah, as understood from the Torah by the multitude of Sages, and as understood by the Rambam himself. Because we're going to be pausing our Iyov shiurim for the summer, I had to make it clear - in the shiur and in this synopsis - that what we covered in this shiur will NOT attempt to convey a complete picture of the Rambam's view. For that, we'll need to learn 3:19-21 on Divine knowledge, followed by his "commentary" on Sefer Iyov in 3:22-23, concluding with his final thoughts on hashgachah in 3:51. And for all of that, we'll have to wait until our shiurim resume in the fall. Treat the material we cover in this shiur as the foundation on which the edifice will (God willing) be built when we return.-----מקורות:רמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:יז-יחDavid Guttman - "Divine Providence: Hopes, Goals, and Fears" https://hakirah.org/Vol%205%20Guttmann.pdfרמב"ם - משנה תורה: ספר המדע, הלכות תשובה ט:א-----The Torah content for this month has been sponsored by Meir Areman, l'zeicher nishmas Zelda bas Ziesel, his grandmother, whose yahrzeit is on the 21st of Sivan.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | InstagramPodcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah PodcastWhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist

We read each morning the section of the Ketoret, which includes verses from the Torah that discuss the Ketoret incense offering brought in the Bet Ha'mikdash, as well as a passage from the Talmud that goes into the detail of how the Ketoret was prepared. It is customary when reciting the Gemara's list of the eleven spices from which the Ketoret was made to count them with one's fingers. According to the teachings of Kabbalah, one should count on only one hand, the right hand. One counts the first five with the five fingers of the right hand, and then the next five with those same five fingers, and then the eleventh with one finger on that hand. The right hand is used because it is associated with the divine attribute of Hesed, and we want the Ketoret offering to arouse this quality. Additionally, the Kohen in the Bet Ha'mikdash would offer the Ketoret specifically with his right hand. The Hesed La'alafim (Rav Eliezer Papo, 1785-1828) maintained that one should count the spices with both hands, but we follow the position of the Kabbalists, to count only with the right hand. This is the ruling of the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) and the Kaf Ha'haim (Rav Yaakob Haim Sofer, Baghdad-Jerusalem, 1870-1939). The first four of the eleven spices are Sori, Siporen, Helbena and Lebona, and we then say, "Mishkal Shibim Shibim Maneh" – that seventy measurements of each of these four spices – a total of 280 portions – were included in the Ketoret. We then proceed to list the next four spices: Mor, Kesi'a, Shibolet Nerd, and Karkom, and add "Mishkal Shisha Asar Shisha Asar Maneh" – sixteen portions of each of these four ingredients (a total of 64) were included. The next spice is "Kost," of which "Shenem Asar" – twelve portions – were included in the Ketoret. The list concludes with the final two spices – three portions of Kilufa and nine portions of Kinamon. This brings the total amount of portions to 368 (280+64+12+3+9). All the other items listed in the Ketoret section were not ingredients of the Ketoret, but were used in the process of preparing of the Ketoret. Interestingly, although the section from the Gemara lists eleven spices that comprised the Ketoret, the Torah lists only four – Nataf, Shehelet, Helbena, Lebona Zaka (Shemot 30:34). The Sages arrived at a total of 11 because the Torah introduces its list with the word "Samim" (spices), which implies the inclusion of an additional two spices. And, after listing the first three spices – Nataf, Shehelet and Helbena – the Torah repeats the word "Samim," indicating another five in addition to the five that were already mentioned. The Torah then mentions the final spice, Lebona Zaka, bringing the total to 11. Hacham Baruch Ben-Haim would count the eleven spices with his fingers not only when reading the Gemara's list, but also when reading these verses. He counted the first instance of the word "Samim" as two, then Nataf, Shehelet and Helbena, followed by five for the second instance of "Samim," and then the eleventh when reading the word "Lebona Zaka." Hacham Baruch noted that the Gemara, when listing the eleven spices, adds the preface "Ha" when mentioning the first four spices: "Ha'sori, Ve'ha'siporen, Ha'helbena, Ve'halebona." The preface "Ha" is the definitive article "the," and thus the Gemara is identifying these four spices as ingredients that we are already familiar with, as though saying, "The Sori that was already mentioned, the Siporen that was already mentioned," and so on. Hacham Baruch explained that these are the four spices mentioned explicitly in the Torah, and so the Gemara refers to them with the definitive article "Ha."

Most people spend their lives trying to understand who they are through achievement, performance, personality labels, or external validation yet still feel disconnected from themselves underneath it all.Executive coach and Vedic wisdom teacher Vish Chatterji explores the hidden relationship between consciousness, karma, leadership, and identity through the lens of Jyotish, the ancient science of Vedic astrology. What begins as skepticism from an engineer and MBA-trained executive evolves into a deeper exploration of self-awareness, emotional patterns, and soul-level alignment.Together they explore the difference between Western astrology and Vedic astrology, why so many leaders feel emotionally fragmented despite outward success, and how ancient systems can illuminate the hidden tensions we carry into work, relationships, and personal growth. Vish reframes astrology not as fate, but as a tool for consciousness; one that helps people recognize their strengths, karmic patterns, and deeper nature beneath ego and performance.Together, Amy and Vish reflect on intuition, manifestation, karmic debt, leadership, and the emotional freedom that can emerge when we stop resisting difficult experiences and begin seeing meaning inside them.At its core, this episode is an invitation to move beyond self-improvement as performance and toward a more conscious relationship with ourselves, our choices, and the lives we're creating.Moments That Create Momentum:When Achievement Stops Answering Deeper Questions – Explore why so many high performers continue searching for meaning, identity, and fulfillment long after external success arrives.The Gap Between Ego and Authentic Self – Discover how ancient wisdom traditions describe the tension between who we've learned to become and who we actually are underneath performance and survival.Why Leaders Keep Searching for Personality Frameworks – From Myers-Briggs to Vedic astrology, the episode explores humanity's deeper desire to feel understood beyond roles, titles, and productivity.Karma as Emotional and Relational Accountability – Reframing karma not as punishment, but as an energetic balancing process that shapes relationships, conflict, growth, and healing.The Danger of Outsourcing Inner Authority – A nuanced reflection on predictions, intuition, and why discernment matters when seeking guidance, certainty, or spiritual insight.About the Guest:Vish Chatterji is an East-meets-West executive coach, Vedic wisdom teacher, and author who helps people find deeper alignment and meaning in their work through the traditions of Yoga, Meditation, Ayurveda, Vedic Philosophy, and Jyotish (Vedic Astrology). After a successful career as an engineer, executive, and entrepreneur, he now leads the global coaching practice Head & Heart Insights and serves as a Faculty Coach and Educator for the Berkeley Executive Coaching Institute at UC Berkeley.He holds degrees from Northwestern University and the University of Michigan, along with an executive coaching certification from UC Berkeley, and has studied in traditional Himalayan ashrams and at the Chopra Center for Wellbeing. Vish is the author of The Business Casual Yogi and Astrology Decoded: The Secret Science of India's Sages.https://www.instagram.com/vishchatterji/https://www.facebook.com/vishchatterjiauthorhttps://www.linkedin.com/in/vish-vishwajeet-chatterji-b3b2681/Astrology Decoded - https://www.vishchatterji.com/astrology-decodedAbout Amy:Amy Lynn Durham, known by her clients as the Corporate Mystic, is the founder of the Executive Coaching Firm, Create Magic At Work®, where they help leaders build workplaces rooted in creativity, collaboration, and fulfillment. A former corporate executive turned Executive Coach, Amy blends practical leadership strategies with spiritual intelligence to unlock human potential at work.She's a certified Executive Coach through UC Berkeley & the International Coaching Federation (ICF) In addition, Amy holds coaching certifications in Spiritual Intelligence (SQ21), the Edgewalker Profile, and the Archetypes of Change . In addition to being the host of the Create Magic At Work® podcast, Amy is the author of Create Magic At Work®, Creating Career Magic: A Daily Prompt Journal and the founder of Magic Thread Media™. Through her work, she inspires intentional leadership for thriving workplaces and lives where “magic” becomes reality.Connect with Amy:https://createmagicatwork.net/https://www.linkedin.com/company/create-magic-at-workhttps://www.facebook.com/112951637095427https://www.instagram.com/createmagicatworkhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnEm4h3fUgaq8qgvZpz6dGgThanks for listening!Thanks so much for listening to our podcast! If you enjoyed this episode and think that others could benefit from listening, please share it using the social media buttons on this page.Do you have some feedback or questions about this episode? Leave a comment in the section below!Subscribe to the podcastIf you would like to get automatic updates of new podcast episodes, you can follow the podcast on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app.Leave us an Apple Podcasts reviewRatings and reviews from our listeners are extremely valuable to us and greatly appreciated. They help our podcast rank higher on Apple Podcasts, which exposes our show to more awesome listeners like you. If you are enjoying the show, please leave us a review on Apple Podcasts.Mentioned in this episode:This show was brought to you in part by the Magic Thread Media Network. To learn more visit: https://magicthreadmedia.com/

May 30 first through 6:30 As we saw in an earlier installment, common practice among Sepharadim is not to recite each day the sections of the Torah discussing the various sacrifices (with the exception of the section that discusses the daily Tamid offering). However, the Poskim mention that during the time of a plague, it is recommended to read these sections of the Torah, as this recitation has the power to bring protection. This is especially true with regard to the reading of the Ketoret – the section dealing with the incense offering brought in the Bet Ha'mikdash. The Sages teach that when Moshe Rabbenu went to the heavens to receive the Torah, the angels in the heavens strongly opposed the plan to give the Torah to human beings, but Moshe prevailed in convincing them that the Torah belongs here in our world. G-d then ordered the angels to give Moshe gifts. Even the Satan was compelled to give Moshe a gift – and its gift to Moshe was the revelation of a secret. The Satan told Moshe that the only thing which it fears, which prevents it from inflicting the harm it wishes to inflict, is the Ketoret. Moshe used this secret during the aftermath of Korah's revolt, when Hashem unleashed a devastating plague that killed thousands among Beneh Yisrael. To stop the plague, Moshe instructed Aharon to bring an incense offering, and this ended the plague. Today, we cannot bring the Ketoret, but we can nevertheless read the section from the Torah and the section from the Gemara that discusses this offering, through which we earn protection as though we actually offered the Ketoret. Therefore, during times of widespread illness, such as during a pandemic, it is worthwhile to read the section of the Ketoret. Likewise, if somebody falls ill, it is advisable to read the Ketoret on the patient's behalf. It's worth noting in this context the opening verse of Parashat Behukotai, which promises rewards if we follow the Misvot. In stating the conditions for earning these rewards, the Torah says both "you observe My commands" ("Ve'et Misvotai Tishmeru") and "you perform them" ("Va'asitem Otam"). At first glance, these phrases seem redundant. Rav Levi Yishak of Berditchev (1740-1809), in Kedushat Levi, explains that the word "Tishmeru" in this context means not "observe," but rather "anticipate." Thus, for example, the Torah relates that after Yaakob Abinu heard Yosef's dreams about his becoming leader over his brothers, "Ve'abiv Shamar Et Ha'dabar" (Bereshit 37:11) – he eagerly awaited ("Shamar") the fulfillment of these dreams. Likewise, we speak of "Shemirat Shabbat," which means not only Shabbat observance, but also eagerly anticipating Shabbat throughout the week. Thus, Rav Levi Yishak writes, the phrase "Ve'et Misvotai Tishmeru" refers to longing to perform the Misvot, even when this is not possible. The Torah promises us rewards if we perform the Misvot we are able to perform, and if we genuinely long to perform the Misvot which we cannot perform. Thus, in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, as we are unable to offer sacrifices, we must still long to bring them as the Torah wants us to. By doing so, we receive credit as though we observed them.

Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with second tithe funds before it fermented, and it ultimately fermented, it is treated as wine. His words pose a difficulty for our Mishna, which did not present such an option. Rabba establishes the Mishna in a case where it is clear that it will not ferment later, while Rava suggests that the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that everything follows the visual appearance (chazuta) at the time of the sale. Rabbi Elazar disputes Rav Nachman's understanding of the Mishna in Ma'asrot, holding that the dispute applies when it has not fermented, but once it ferments, everyone agrees it is considered wine. A braita brings the laws of purifying temed that has not yet fermented by connecting it to water (haska). Rava limits this rule, explaining that this applies only when the water of the temed was pure from the beginning and became impure after it became temed, but if it was impure from the outset, it does not. However, Rav Ashi rejects his ruling and argues that there is no logic to distinguish between the cases. The Mishna states that anywhere there is a sale (a minor girl, ketana), there is no fine for rape (whose law only applies to a young woman, na'ara), and anywhere there is a fine, there is no sale. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that a fine applies even to a ketana. A Mishna states that anywhere there is refusal (miun, for a ketana), there is no chalitza (for a na'ara), and anywhere there is chalitza, there is no miun. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says that this is also the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that miun applies even to a na'ara. A Mishna states that anywhere there is a shofar blast (tekiya), there is no havdala, and anywhere there is havdala, there is no tekiya. If a Festival falls on the eve of the Sabbath, you blow the shofar and do not say havdala. If it falls on the conclusion of the Sabbath, you say havdala and do not blow. The Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute the exact wording of the havdala.

C'est rare, mais il arrive que le Conseil constitutionnel fasse la Une de l'actualité.

Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with second tithe funds before it fermented, and it ultimately fermented, it is treated as wine. His words pose a difficulty for our Mishna, which did not present such an option. Rabba establishes the Mishna in a case where it is clear that it will not ferment later, while Rava suggests that the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that everything follows the visual appearance (chazuta) at the time of the sale. Rabbi Elazar disputes Rav Nachman's understanding of the Mishna in Ma'asrot, holding that the dispute applies when it has not fermented, but once it ferments, everyone agrees it is considered wine. A braita brings the laws of purifying temed that has not yet fermented by connecting it to water (haska). Rava limits this rule, explaining that this applies only when the water of the temed was pure from the beginning and became impure after it became temed, but if it was impure from the outset, it does not. However, Rav Ashi rejects his ruling and argues that there is no logic to distinguish between the cases. The Mishna states that anywhere there is a sale (a minor girl, ketana), there is no fine for rape (whose law only applies to a young woman, na'ara), and anywhere there is a fine, there is no sale. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that a fine applies even to a ketana. A Mishna states that anywhere there is refusal (miun, for a ketana), there is no chalitza (for a na'ara), and anywhere there is chalitza, there is no miun. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says that this is also the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that miun applies even to a na'ara. A Mishna states that anywhere there is a shofar blast (tekiya), there is no havdala, and anywhere there is havdala, there is no tekiya. If a Festival falls on the eve of the Sabbath, you blow the shofar and do not say havdala. If it falls on the conclusion of the Sabbath, you say havdala and do not blow. The Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute the exact wording of the havdala.

C'est rare, mais il arrive que le Conseil constitutionnel fasse la Une de l'actualité.

In day 136 of the Jewish Inspiration Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe continues his study of the Gate of Slander from Orchos Tzaddikim (Ways of the Righteous). He explains why the Sages consider Lashon Hara worse than the three cardinal sins: unlike those sins, which stem from momentary temptation and allow for Teshuvah, habitual slander becomes normalized, minimized in the speaker's eyes (“It's just words”), and extremely difficult to fully repent because of the hidden, far-reaching damage it causes.Rabbi Wolbe highlights the practical devastation caused by negative speech — lost jobs, ruined marriages, damaged family relationships, and even generational harm — and the challenge of seeking forgiveness when one cannot remember everyone affected. He strongly criticizes modern media and comedy that casually destroy reputations under the guise of “journalism” or “just joking.” The class ends on an inspiring note about the tremendous positive power of speech: the same tongue that can destroy can also build, encourage, teach Torah, and bring people closer to God, as “life and death are in the hands of the tongue.”_____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Peter & Becky BotvinRecorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on January 26, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on May 25, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.orgv_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #lashonhara, #guardyourtongue, #chafetzchaim, #reputationsmatter, #spiritualgrowth ★ Support this podcast ★

In this episode of the Jewish Inspiration Podcast, Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe begins a new chapter from Orchos Tzaddikim (Ways of the Righteous) on the Gate of Slander (Lashon Hara). He explains that Lashon Hara refers to true but negative speech about another person, distinguishing it from Motzi Shem Ra (spreading false rumors). The rabbi emphasizes how destructive such speech is — it harms the subject's reputation, damages relationships and business opportunities, and offers the speaker no real benefit, only a fleeting sense of superiority.Rabbi Wolbe highlights the extreme severity of this sin according to our Sages: speaking Lashon Hara is compared to denying God and is equated with the three cardinal sins (idolatry, illicit relations, and murder). He stresses that one must never bring up a person's past once they have done Teshuvah. A personal anecdote illustrates how easily Lashon Hara becomes the default topic in social gatherings, underscoring the need for conscious effort to avoid it. The class concludes with a powerful reminder from the Chafetz Chaim on guarding one's tongue to truly desire life and see good in others._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Peter & Becky BotvinRecorded at TORCH Centre in the Levin Family Studios (B) to a live audience on January 26, 2026, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on May 24, 2026_____________This series on Orchos Tzadikim/Ways of the Righteous is produced in partnership with Hachzek.Join the revolution of daily Mussar study at hachzek.com.We are using the Treasure of Life edition of the Orchos Tzadikkim (Published by Feldheim)_____________Listen, Subscribe & Share: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/jewish-inspiration-podcast-rabbi-aryeh-wolbe/id1476610783Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/4r0KfjMzmCNQbiNaZBCSU7) to stay inspired! Share your questions at aw@torchweb.org or visit torchweb.org for more Torah content.  _____________About the Host:Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe, Director of TORCH in Houston, brings decades of Torah scholarship to guide listeners in applying Jewish wisdom to daily life.  To directly send your questions, comments, and feedback, please email: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Support Our Mission:Our Mission is Connecting Jews & Judaism. Help us spread Judaism globally by sponsoring an episode at torchweb.org.Your support makes a HUGE difference!_____________Listen MoreOther podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Hey Rabbi! Podcast: https://heyrabbi.transistor.fm/episodesPrayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at http://podcast.torchweb.orgv_____________Keywords:#JewishInspiration, #Mussar, #MasterClass, #lashonhara, #guardyourtongue, #chafetzchaim, #reputationsmatter, #spiritualgrowth ★ Support this podcast ★

התוכן עפ"י המבואר בתקו"ז ובפרדס מובן שסדר הנכון בציור הנקודות הוא שהשורק בא לפני הקבוץ. ולהבא יש לתקן את הדברים (ומה שיש עוד סדר בציור הנקודות – הרי כ"ה בריבוי ענינים בש"ס שיש בהם מחלוקת, שב' הדעות נאמרו למשה מסיני אבל להלכה יש להתנהג כדעה א' בלבד) . נוסף על קיום הוראת רבותינו נשיאינו לדייק בלימוד האותיות בפ"ע, לימוד הנקודות בפ"ע, ולאח"ז לחברם יחד. ולדוגמא בנוגע לאות אל"ף: לכל לראש מלמדים צורת אל"ף ללא ניקוד, וכפי שביאר כ"ק מו"ח אדמו"ר שכאשר לומדים עם הילד "קמץ אל"ף אָ", ה"ז קשור עם האל"ף ד"אָנכי ה' אלקיך"! ואמחז"ל ש"אנכי נוטריקון אנא נפשי כתבית יהבית", ו"אנא" קאי על עצמותו ומהותו ית', ועפ"ז מובן שעצם ופשיטות הענין דאל"ף – אלופו של עולם – מתבטא באות אל"ף בלי ניקוד (שמורה על איזה ציור)! ודוקא כך משרישים בלב הילד כבר מקטנותו הענין דאלופו של עולם.משיחת א' דר"ח אלול ה'תשמ"ב ל"הנחה פרטית" או התרגום ללה"ק של השיחה: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=24-05-2026 Synopsis Based on what is explained in Tikkunei Zohar and Pardes, it is understood that in the correct order of the nekudos, shuruk comes before kubutz. Going forward, this should be corrected. (As for the fact that there is another order in nekudos, it is like the many disagreements in Shas, where both opinions were given to Moshe at Sinai, but the practical halacha follows only one.) Additionally, our Rebbeim instructed specifically to teach the letters separately, the nekudos separately, and only then join the two together. For example,, one should first teach the form of the letter Alef without any vowelization. As my father-in-law, the Rebbe, explained, when one teaches a child “kamatz Alef, uh,” it is linked to the Alef of “Anochi Hashem Elokecha,” and our Sages taught that Anochi is an acronym for “Ana Nafshi Kesovis Yehovis” (“I wrote and gave Myself”), where Ana refers to Hashem's Essence and Being. Accordingly, it is understood that the pure, simple essence of Alef – the Alufo shel Olam – is expressed specifically in the letter Alef without vowelization (whereas a vowel already imparts a particular form). It is precisely in this way that the Alufo shel Olam is implanted in a child's heart from a very young age.Excerpt from sichah of 30 Menachem-Av 5742 For a transcript in English of the Sicha: https://thedailysicha.com/?date=24-05-2026 לזכות הינדא לאה בת חי' שרה שתחי' וויינבוים ליום ההולדת שלה ביום א' דחג השבועותלשנת ברכה והצלחה, ואריכות ימים ושנים טובות‏

Recorded live at the Wisdom of the Sages retreat at SuperSoul Farm, this Q&A episode opens with a question that sits at the heart of bhakti — what does it actually mean to be a pure devotee? From there, Raghunath and Kaustubha move through honest questions from the room: how to begin worshiping Tulsi Devi and the deities at home, how a bhakta thinks about hunting and the stewardship of animals, and how to hold firm boundaries with people whose behavior we can't condone without slipping into condemnation. Threaded through it all is a recurring theme — that behind every warped mind is a pure soul, and that the devotees who touch our hearts are the ones who change our lives. ******************************************************************** LOVE THE PODCAST? WE ARE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AND WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO JOIN! Go to https://www.wisdomofthesages.com WATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://youtube.com/@WisdomoftheSages LISTEN ON ITUNES: https://podcasts/apple.com/us/podcast/wisdom-of-the-sages/id1493055485 CONNECT ON FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/wisdomofthesages108 *********************************************************************

Recorded live at the Wisdom of the Sages retreat at SuperSoul Farm, this Q&A episode opens with a question that sits at the heart of bhakti — what does it actually mean to be a pure devotee? From there, Raghunath and Kaustubha move through honest questions from the room: how to begin worshiping Tulsi Devi and the deities at home, how a bhakta thinks about hunting and the stewardship of animals, and how to hold firm boundaries with people whose behavior we can't condone without slipping into condemnation. Threaded through it all is a recurring theme — that behind every warped mind is a pure soul, and that the devotees who touch our hearts are the ones who change our lives. ******************************************************************** LOVE THE PODCAST? WE ARE COMMUNITY SUPPORTED AND WOULD LOVE FOR YOU TO JOIN! Go to https://www.wisdomofthesages.com WATCH ON YOUTUBE: https://youtube.com/@WisdomoftheSages LISTEN ON ITUNES: https://podcasts/apple.com/us/podcast/wisdom-of-the-sages/id1493055485 CONNECT ON FACEBOOK: https://facebook.com/wisdomofthesages108 *********************************************************************

(Moulin de Chaves)

La Roumanie est le pays d'Europe où l'on pratique le plus de césariennes. Une femme sur deux est concernée. Au moindre prétexte, les gynécologues leur recommandent une césarienne, par facilité. Face à des maternités débordées, les sage-femmes réclament une place plus importante dans le système de santé public. Une proposition de loi est en préparation au Parlement et elle pourrait bientôt permettre le remboursement de leurs soins dans les hôpitaux publics. Reportage de notre correspondant, Guilhem Bernes.

(Moulin de Chaves)

Study Guide The Gemara introduces a braita to show the source for the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon in a bird burnt offering. The braita presents three distinct opinions on the biblical term "k'mishpat" regarding a bird burnt offering. The Sages debate whether this term compares it to an animal sin offering or a bird sin offering, detailing the exact procedural laws they share. This very debate serves as the foundation for the conflicting views of the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon regarding whether the two simanim must be severed completely. The Mishna states the age rules for birds for sacrifices: mature turtledoves (torim) are valid while young ones are not, whereas young pigeons (bnei yonah) are valid while mature ones are not. The Gemara defines the exact boundaries of these stages, analyzing the transitional phase known as techilat hatzahov (when the plumage around the neck begins to turn a golden/yellow color), which is disqualified in both species.

Study Guide Zeiri rules that if an animal or bird's neck bone is broken and the majority of the surrounding flesh is severed, it immediately becomes a neveila (carcass), even if it is still convulsing. Rava challenges this: if this state constitutes a neveila, how can melika be validly performed on a sacrificial bird, given that the process begins by breaking the neck? Rava answers that in melika, the kohen breaks the neck bone and spinal column without simultaneously severing the majority of the surrounding flesh. Rabbi Ami answers the challenge in the same manner, and his and Rava's answers are supported by a braita. The braita notes that in a bird burnt offering (olat ha'of), either the majority of both simanim or both simanim in their entirety must be cut. Because the Sages and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon dispute whether both simanim must be completely severed or if cutting the majority suffices, the Gemara suggests two interpretations to align the braita with one or both of these respective opinions. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel applies Zeiri's principle to humans, ruling that if a person's backbone and the majority of the surrounding flesh are severed, they immediately impart ritual impurity in a tent (tumat ohel) like a corpse, even if the body is still convulsing. Rabbi Yochanan introduces an additional case where the legal moment of death is determined immediately despite lingering convulsions. A parallel case regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures) is brought from a Mishna, prompting a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Ami over whether "cutting off the head" means a complete detachment or a partial one, similar to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon concerning a bird burnt offering. The Gemara introduces a braita to show the source for the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon in a bird burnt offering. The braita presents three distinct opinions on the biblical term "k'mishpat"  regarding a bird burnt offering. The Sages debate whether this term compares it to an animal sin offering or a bird sin offering, detailing the exact procedural laws they share. This very debate serves as the foundation for the conflicting views of the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon regarding whether the two simanim must be severed completely.

Numerous reasons have been given for the time-honored, cherished custom to eat dairy foods on Shabuot. One of the lesser-known explanations is that offered by the Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles, Poland, 1530-1572), in his glosses to the Shulhan Aruch (Orah Haim 494). Interestingly enough, the custom the Rama describes is to eat a dairy meal followed by a meat meal. As Halacha forbids using the same loaf of bread for a dairy meal and a meat meal, eating these two meals necessitates the use of two separate loaves. These two loaves, the Rama writes, commemorate the special Shabuot sacrifice, which, as the Torah commands in the Book of Vayikra ( 23:17), consisted of two loaves of bread, and was thus named Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem (the "two-breads sacrifice"). We might wonder why, according to the Rama, no such commemoration is made for a similar sacrifice brought on the second day of Pesach. The Korban Ha'omer was offered from the newly-harvested barley on the 16 th of Nissan, and it paralleled the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem brought on Shabuot. The Mishna (Menahot 68b) teaches that each of these two sacrifices functioned as a "Matir" – meaning, it made something permissible. The Korban Ha'omer made it permissible to eat from the newly-harvested crops, and the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem made it permissible to offer Menahot (grain offerings) in the Bet Ha'mikdash from the newly-harvested crop. Meaning, although it was permissible to eat from the new grain after the offering of the Korban Ha'omer on the 16 th of Nissan, it remained forbidden to bring a meal-offering in the Temple from the new grain until the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem was brought on Shabuot. Seemingly, if – as the Rama writes – we make a commemoration on Shabuot for the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem, then we should also make a commemoration on the second day of Pesach for the Korban Ha'omer. Why don't we? The answer lies is a fundamental distinction between these two sacrifices. This distinction is expressed in a comment by the Sefat Emet (Rav Yehuda Aryeh Leib of Ger, Poland, 1847-1905) discussing a situation where, for whatever reason, the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem was not brought on Shabuot. When it comes to the Korban Ha'omer on Pesach, the Sages inferred from a verse that the new grain becomes permissible for consumption after the 16 th of Nissan even if the sacrifice was not offered. Although the sacrifice is what permits the new grain, if there was no sacrifice, the grain becomes permissible after that day. One might have thought that since no such textual inference was made in regard to the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem, the new grain remains forbidden for use with Menahot if this sacrifice is not offered. (This is, indeed, the view taken by the Minhat Hinuch, Siman 307.) The Sefat Emet, however, writes that this is not so. He explains that the Torah does not actually forbid using the new grain for sacrifices before the offering of the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem. Rather, it requires that the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem must be the first sacrifice brought from the new crop. This sacrifice is called a "Minha Hadasha" – "a new grain offering," because it was the first grain offering prepared with the newly-harvested wheat. This is the only reason why sacrifices may not be brought from the new crop before Shabuot – because the special Shabuot offering must be the first sacrifice brought from the new grain. Naturally, then, if – for whatever reason – this sacrifice was not brought, sacrifices may nevertheless be brought from the new crop after Shavuot. This understanding of the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem points to a fundamental distinction between this sacrifice and the Korban Ha'omer on Pesach. The Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem is not actually a "Matir." Its function is not to permit wheat for use with sacrifices. It is offered as part of the celebration of Shabuot, which is called "Yom Ha'bikkurim" (Bamidbar 28:26) – the day of the new produce, when the first portion of newly-harvested wheat is brought as a sacrifice. The Korban Ha'omer, by contrast, is not inherently linked to Pesach. It happens to coincide with Pesach, but it has nothing inherently to do with this holiday. The Torah commanded offering this sacrifice on the 16 th of Nissan to permit eating the new crop, but this offering is not part of the observance of Pesach. This is seen clearly in the Rambam's rulings regarding the distribution of these sacrifices among the Kohanim. Generally speaking, the portions of a sacrifice given to the Kohanim were distributed only among the Kohanim who were "on duty" when the sacrifice was offered. However, the special Yom Tov sacrifices were distributed among any Kohen who wanted a portion, even if the Yom Tov was not during his "shift." In Hilchot Temidin U'musafin, the Rambam writes that the Korban Ha'omer was treated like a regular sacrifice – given only to the Kohanim who were "on duty" that day – but the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem was distributed among all the Kohanim, as it is a Yom Tov sacrifice. This clearly shows that the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem is part of the celebration of Shabuot, whereas the Korban Ha'omer is not part of the celebration of Pesach. This easily explains why, according to the Rama, we make a commemoration of the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem on Shabuot, but make no similar commemoration of the Korban Ha'omer on Pesach. Since the Korban Sheteh Ha'lehem was an integral part of the Yom Tob of Shabuot in the times of the Bet Ha'mikdash, it warrants a commemoration now, when we cannot offer the sacrifice. The Korban Ha'omer, by contrast, was not an integral part of the Pesach celebration, and so it does not warrant a commemoration nowadays.

durée : 00:20:23 - Le journal de 18h00 - Vers le retour des ZFE. Le Conseil constitutionnel censure l'amendement qui avait supprimé les zones à faibles émissions, destinées à éloigner les véhicules polluants des grandes agglomérations. Pour les Sages, il s'agit d'un "cavalier législatif" sans rapport avec la loi de simplification. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Stanislas Vasak, Alison Vicrobeck Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

Study Guide The Gemara introduces a braita to show the source for the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon in a bird burnt offering. The braita presents three distinct opinions on the biblical term "k'mishpat" regarding a bird burnt offering. The Sages debate whether this term compares it to an animal sin offering or a bird sin offering, detailing the exact procedural laws they share. This very debate serves as the foundation for the conflicting views of the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon regarding whether the two simanim must be severed completely. The Mishna states the age rules for birds for sacrifices: mature turtledoves (torim) are valid while young ones are not, whereas young pigeons (bnei yonah) are valid while mature ones are not. The Gemara defines the exact boundaries of these stages, analyzing the transitional phase known as techilat hatzahov (when the plumage around the neck begins to turn a golden/yellow color), which is disqualified in both species.

Study Guide Zeiri rules that if an animal or bird's neck bone is broken and the majority of the surrounding flesh is severed, it immediately becomes a neveila (carcass), even if it is still convulsing. Rava challenges this: if this state constitutes a neveila, how can melika be validly performed on a sacrificial bird, given that the process begins by breaking the neck? Rava answers that in melika, the kohen breaks the neck bone and spinal column without simultaneously severing the majority of the surrounding flesh. Rabbi Ami answers the challenge in the same manner, and his and Rava's answers are supported by a braita. The braita notes that in a bird burnt offering (olat ha'of), either the majority of both simanim or both simanim in their entirety must be cut. Because the Sages and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon dispute whether both simanim must be completely severed or if cutting the majority suffices, the Gemara suggests two interpretations to align the braita with one or both of these respective opinions. Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel applies Zeiri's principle to humans, ruling that if a person's backbone and the majority of the surrounding flesh are severed, they immediately impart ritual impurity in a tent (tumat ohel) like a corpse, even if the body is still convulsing. Rabbi Yochanan introduces an additional case where the legal moment of death is determined immediately despite lingering convulsions. A parallel case regarding sheratzim (creeping creatures) is brought from a Mishna, prompting a debate between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Ami over whether "cutting off the head" means a complete detachment or a partial one, similar to the opinion of Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon concerning a bird burnt offering. The Gemara introduces a braita to show the source for the debate between the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon in a bird burnt offering. The braita presents three distinct opinions on the biblical term "k'mishpat"  regarding a bird burnt offering. The Sages debate whether this term compares it to an animal sin offering or a bird sin offering, detailing the exact procedural laws they share. This very debate serves as the foundation for the conflicting views of the rabbis and Rabbi Elazar b'Rabbi Shimon regarding whether the two simanim must be severed completely.

durée : 00:20:23 - Les journaux de France Culture - Vers le retour des ZFE. Le Conseil constitutionnel censure l'amendement qui avait supprimé les zones à faibles émissions, destinées à éloigner les véhicules polluants des grandes agglomérations. Pour les Sages, il s'agit d'un "cavalier législatif" sans rapport avec la loi de simplification. - réalisation : La Rédaction de France Culture, Stanislas Vasak, Alison Vicrobeck Vous aimez ce podcast ? Pour écouter tous les épisodes sans limite, rendez-vous sur Radio France

The sons of Rabbi Chiya taught that when performing melika (pinching the neck of a sacrificial bird), the kohen may draw the simanim (the windpipe and gullet) toward the back of the neck and sever them without breaking the neck bone. The Sages dispute whether they meant this is the only valid method (to avoid rendering the bird a treifa by breaking the bone first), or if breaking the neck bone prior to cutting the simanim is also permitted as a Torah-prescribed approach. The Mishna supports this latter explanation. Rabbi Yannai raises a difficulty against the sons of Rabbi Chiya based on an inference from another line in the Mishna, which the Gemara resolves by demonstrating that an alternative inference can be drawn. The Gemara notes a debate regarding whether melika can be performed with a back-and-forth sawing motion (holacha v'hava'a) similar to shechita. Rabbi Yirmia quotes a statement by Shmuel comparing shechita and melika. After analyzing what specific law was being equated, the Gemara concludes that Shmuel is teaching that if one begins the melika too high on the neck (hagrama) and finishes in the correct area, it is disqualified -  just as we learned regarding shechita. Rami bar Yechezkel cites a braita stating that there is no issue with birds if the simanim are found to be displaced. The Gemara disputes whether this applies only according to the opinion that shechita of a bird is not a Torah law, or if it holds true even for those who view it as a Torah obligation derived via halakha l'Moshe m'Sinai. A further debate ensues over whether Rami bar Yechezkel's braita applies exclusively to melika or extends to the shechita of a bird as well. Additionally, Rabbi Yirmia's statement in the name of Shmuel is presented as a conflicting view to this braita. Zeira rules that if the neck bone is broken, the animal or bird immediately becomes a neveila (carcass), even if the animal is still convulsing. Rava challenges this: if breaking the neck bone creates a neveila, how could melika ever be validly performed on a bird, given that the process begins by breaking the neck? This would mean the kohen is performing melika on a bird that is already dead. Abaye raises a difficulty against Rava's challenge from the laws of a bird burnt offering, and the Gemara resolves the issue.

The sons of Rabbi Chiya taught that when performing melika (pinching the neck of a sacrificial bird), the kohen may draw the simanim (the windpipe and gullet) toward the back of the neck and sever them without breaking the neck bone. The Sages dispute whether they meant this is the only valid method (to avoid rendering the bird a treifa by breaking the bone first), or if breaking the neck bone prior to cutting the simanim is also permitted as a Torah-prescribed approach. The Mishna supports this latter explanation. Rabbi Yannai raises a difficulty against the sons of Rabbi Chiya based on an inference from another line in the Mishna, which the Gemara resolves by demonstrating that an alternative inference can be drawn. The Gemara notes a debate regarding whether melika can be performed with a back-and-forth sawing motion (holacha v'hava'a) similar to shechita. Rabbi Yirmia quotes a statement by Shmuel comparing shechita and melika. After analyzing what specific law was being equated, the Gemara concludes that Shmuel is teaching that if one begins the melika too high on the neck (hagrama) and finishes in the correct area, it is disqualified -  just as we learned regarding shechita. Rami bar Yechezkel cites a braita stating that there is no issue with birds if the simanim are found to be displaced. The Gemara disputes whether this applies only according to the opinion that shechita of a bird is not a Torah law, or if it holds true even for those who view it as a Torah obligation derived via halakha l'Moshe m'Sinai. A further debate ensues over whether Rami bar Yechezkel's braita applies exclusively to melika or extends to the shechita of a bird as well. Additionally, Rabbi Yirmia's statement in the name of Shmuel is presented as a conflicting view to this braita. Zeira rules that if the neck bone is broken, the animal or bird immediately becomes a neveila (carcass), even if the animal is still convulsing. Rava challenges this: if breaking the neck bone creates a neveila, how could melika ever be validly performed on a bird, given that the process begins by breaking the neck? This would mean the kohen is performing melika on a bird that is already dead. Abaye raises a difficulty against Rava's challenge from the laws of a bird burnt offering, and the Gemara resolves the issue.

This week on Sages of the Ages our two chronomagical comrades bring you a bunch of tunes directly from 1996. And because it's NZ Music Month, they're all bangers directly from Aotearoa. Including artists such as The Mutton Birds, Thorazine Shuffle, and Tall Dwarfs. They also bring you the latest on unleaded petrol, Mixed Member Proportional, and the Oceanic Football Confederation. Whakarongo mai!

Pictures Rav Nachman permitted slaughtering above the large ring, at the point where the "hat" begins to slope inward, provided that the chitim (wheat-shaped glands) are at least partially left intact below the cut. This ruling matches neither the rabbis nor Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda, but appears to follow the position of Rabbi Chanina ben Antignus. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman dispute the exact parameters of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda. One view posits that they disagree in a case where the slaughterer cut the first third too high up, and the remaining two-thirds in the correct place - whereas if one cut two-thirds in the correct place and then veered upward for the last third, all agree it is valid (as the majority was already severed properly). An alternative version shifts the opinions between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Both versions include a difficulty and resolution exchanged between either Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, and Abaye. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda further disagree on cases of alternating validity - such as when one slaughters the first third in the wrong place, the next third in the right place, and the final third in the wrong place (or the reverse scenario). Rav Yehuda follows the absolute majority; if the total sum of the valid cuts constitutes a majority, the slaughter is kosher. Rav Huna, however, evaluates the chronological moment the majority is achieved, requiring the majority to be made continuously in a valid manner. Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehuda for the ruling on the cases of alternating thirds. He then raised several subsequent queries regarding the validity of shechita performed over a pre-existing perforation (nekev) in the windpipe. The Mishna notes that the location for shechita is the exact opposite of the location for melika (the sacrificial pinching of a bird's neck). Melika must be performed from the back of the neck (oref), whereas shechita must be performed from the front or the sides of the neck.

J'ai le plaisir de recevoir Audrey Jougla, professeur de philosophie, écrivaine et chroniqueuse spécialisée dans les questions d'éducation et de parentalité. À travers ses livres, ses réflexions et son regard profondément humain, elle interroge notre manière d'éduquer, de transmettre et de faire grandir les enfants dans un monde traversé par l'incertitude, la vitesse et les injonctions contradictoires.Pourquoi est-il devenu si difficile de se concentrer ? Comment retrouver le goût de l'effort et de la lecture dans un quotidien dominé par l'immédiateté ? Et si l'obéissance n'était pas toujours une qualité ? Qu'est-ce que les enfants révèlent de nos peurs, de nos limites, mais aussi de notre capacité à aimer et à transmettre ?Dans cet épisode, on parle de parentalité, de concentration, de lecture, d'intelligence artificielle, mais aussi des violences éducatives ordinaires et des manières de mieux protéger les enfants. Audrey Jougla partage une vision de l'éducation plus sensible et plus nuancée, où la joie, le jeu, les câlins, les blagues et les comptines deviennent autant de façons de préserver la beauté du quotidien. On parle aussi des sacrifices, des contradictions et des bouleversements que la parentalité peut faire naître.Je vous souhaite une très bonne écoute !—Recommandations :Pour un prochain épisode : Alexandre Lacroix, rédacteur en chef de Philosophie MagazineÀ lire : Premières classes. Comment la reproduction sociale joue avant six ans ? sous la direction de Frédérique Giraud et Gaële Henri-PanabièreLes livres de Christian Bobin :RessusciterLa folle allureKant—Pour découvrir les coulisses du podcast : https://www.instagram.com/inpowerpodcast/Pour en savoir plus sur Audrey Jougla : https://www.instagram.com/audreyjougla/Et son livre La maternité joyeuse : https://www.editions-stock.fr/livre/la-maternite-joyeuse-9782234099296/L'association L'enfant Bleu : https://enfantbleu.org/respectometre/Pour suivre mes aventures au quotidien : https://www.instagram.com/louiseaubery/Si cet épisode vous a plu, vous aimerez sûrement celui-ci : https://podcasts.apple.com/fr/podcast/la-prostitution-a-chang%C3%A9-ma-vie-avec-l%C3%A9crivaine-emma-becker/id1373863417?i=1000719583454 Hébergé par Acast. Visitez acast.com/privacy pour plus d'informations.

A verse in the Book of Hoshea (14:3) states, "U'neshalema Farim Sefatenu" – "We will compensate for the cows with our lips." This means that in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, when we are unable to offer sacrifices ("cows"), we can attain atonement with our lips – by reciting the sections of the Torah that discuss the sacrifices, as through this recitation we are considered to have actually brought these sacrifices. The verse mentions cows, even though other animals were also offered as sacrifices. The Ibn Ezra (Spain, 1089-1167) suggests that since the cow is the biggest animal offered as a Korban, the verse specifies this animal, expressing the idea that even the large offerings can be substituted nowadays with our mouths. Others suggest that the reference to cows alludes to the sin of the golden calf, the grievous sin which our ancestors committed that requires atonement. Finally, there are those who explain that this refers to the situation where the entire nation inadvertently commits a severe misdeed based on a mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin, a situation which requires the offering a cow for atonement ("Par He'alem Dabar Shel Sibur"). The point being made is that we have the opportunity to attain atonement even for grave sins despite the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the recitation of the sections of the Torah dealing with the sacrifices. A story told in Masechet Shabbat (12b) seems, at first glance, to contradict this concept. The Gemara there discusses the enactment legislated by the Sages that one may not read by candlelight on Shabbat, as he might tilt the lamp to move the oil toward the flame to make it steadier, which would constitute an act of Shabbat desecration. Rabbi Yishmael Ben Elisha felt confident that he would certainly not make the mistake of tilting the lamp, and so he read by the light of a candle on Shabbat. He ended up mistakenly tilting the lamp. After Shabbat, he wrote in his ledger that when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt, he would bring an animal as a Hatat (sin-offering) to atone for this inadvertent violation. It seems that Rabbi Yishmael was not able to atone for this misdeed by reciting the section of the Hatat; he needed to actually bring the sacrifice in order to attain atonement. One explanation might be that reading the section of Korbanot (sacrifices) is effective if one never has the opportunity to actually offer the required sacrifice. But if a person has the privilege of living to see the rebuilding of the Bet Ha'mikdash, then he must offer the sacrifice even though he had recited the section in the Torah. By contrast, the Sapihit Bi'dbash (Rav Hiya Pontremoli, Turkey, 1764–1831), citing the Ma'abar Yabok , asserted that a sin committed during the time of the Bet Ha'mikdash is more grievous, and thus necessitates the actual offering of a sacrifice. After the Temple's destruction, sins lack the same level of gravity, and so they can be atoned even with the recitation of the Korbanot. However, this view appears irreconcilable with the Gemara's account of Rabbi Yishmael, who was obligated to bring a sacrifice for an offense committed after the Temple's destruction. Moreover, the Arizal writes that a person must fulfill all 613 Misvot, and so souls will need to be reincarnated and return after the Bet Ha'mikdash is rebuilt so they can fulfill the Misvot that require a Bet Ha'mikdash. This teaching, too, implies that reciting the Korbanot is not considered equivalent to the actual offering of the sacrifices. A more compelling approach was advanced by the Petah Ha'debir (Rav Haim Binyamin Pontremoli, Turkey, d. 1873), who distinguished between the atonement achieved through the offering of a sacrifice, and the Misva to offer the sacrifice. Reciting the verses that speak of a required sacrifice suffices to atone like that sacrifice, but it does not suffice to satisfy the halachic requirement to bring that sacrifice after committing a misdeed. Therefore, even though Rabbi Yishmael could earn atonement through the recitation of Korbanot, he still bore the obligation to offer a sacrifice when the Bet Ha'mikdash would be rebuilt. Likewise, the Arizal taught that one will have to return after the restoration of the Mikdash to fulfill the Misvot of the sacrifices that could not be fulfilled without a Temple, even though atonement can be achieved even in the absence of the Bet Ha'mikdash, through the reading of Korbanot. One might wonder, then, why we do not read each day the entirety of Parashat Vayikra, which goes through all the different sacrifices which an individual can bring and those which one must bring on certain occasions. If reading about a sacrifice earns a person atonement as though he actually brought the sacrifice, then it would seemingly be recommended to read this entire Parasha each day. Some explain that one attains atonement for his misdeeds through Torah study, and so it is not necessary to read the sections of all the sacrifices every day. Rabbenu Yona (Spain, 1200-1263) writes that when a person makes the decision to perform Teshuba (repentance), he should increase his amount of Torah learning; if he had been accustomed to learning one page a day, then he should learn two pages a day, and so on. This is because Torah study has the ability to erase guilt for one's misdeeds. This is why the blessing in Shemona Esreh in which we beseech G-d to help us repent begins, "Hashibenu Abinu Le'Toratecha" – "Return us, our Father, to Your Torah." As Torah learning is a crucial element of repentance, we ask Hashem to draw us closer to Torah study so we can repent properly. This concept has been understood on the basis of the laws of "Kashering" utensils. The basic principle of "Kashering" is that a non-kosher flavor is expunged from a utensil through the same medium through which it was absorbed. Thus, utensils that were used to cook non-kosher food through direct exposure to fire must be directly exposed to fire to eliminate the forbidden taste so they may become permissible. The Yeser Ha'ra (evil inclination) leads us to sin through the "fire" of forbidden desires, and so we cleanse ourselves from wrongdoing through Torah learning, which is likened to fire. Therefore, some Rabbis explained that it is preferable to immerse oneself in Torah learning to achieve atonement, rather than spend time reading the sections of the Korbanot. Rav Haim Palachi (Turkey, 1788-1868) explained that reading all the sections of the Korbanot is unnecessary because we recite the chapter of "Ezehu Mekoman," which goes through all the various kinds of sacrifices, and this is sufficient for us to be considered to have offered any sacrifice we are required to bring. Another approach was taken by the Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806). We are required to recite 100 Berachot each day, and we also recite each morning Baruch She'amar, which contains eleven expressions that begin with the word "Baruch" (not including the two instances of "Baruch" that begin and end the concluding blessing of Baruch She'amar). These 111 blessings, the Hida writes, correspond to the 111 verses of Parashat Vayikra, and by reciting them we are considered to have recited all of Parashat Vayikra. This discussion underscores for us the importance of reading the Korbanot section each morning. As we have seen, this recitation is not simply an admirable and worthwhile practice; it actually provides us with atonement as though we brought the sacrifices in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Therefore, one should make every effort to arrive on time in the synagogue so he can recite this section and reap the great benefits that it offers.

Pictures Rav Nachman permitted slaughtering above the large ring, at the point where the "hat" begins to slope inward, provided that the chitim (wheat-shaped glands) are at least partially left intact below the cut. This ruling matches neither the rabbis nor Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda, but appears to follow the position of Rabbi Chanina ben Antignus. Rav Huna and Rav Nachman dispute the exact parameters of the disagreement between the Sages and Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda. One view posits that they disagree in a case where the slaughterer cut the first third too high up, and the remaining two-thirds in the correct place - whereas if one cut two-thirds in the correct place and then veered upward for the last third, all agree it is valid (as the majority was already severed properly). An alternative version shifts the opinions between Rav Huna and Rav Chisda. Both versions include a difficulty and resolution exchanged between either Rav Chisda, Rav Yosef, and Abaye. Rav Huna and Rav Yehuda further disagree on cases of alternating validity - such as when one slaughters the first third in the wrong place, the next third in the right place, and the final third in the wrong place (or the reverse scenario). Rav Yehuda follows the absolute majority; if the total sum of the valid cuts constitutes a majority, the slaughter is kosher. Rav Huna, however, evaluates the chronological moment the majority is achieved, requiring the majority to be made continuously in a valid manner. Rav Kahana asked Rav Yehuda for the ruling on the cases of alternating thirds. He then raised several subsequent queries regarding the validity of shechita performed over a pre-existing perforation (nekev) in the windpipe. The Mishna notes that the location for shechita is the exact opposite of the location for melika (the sacrificial pinching of a bird's neck). Melika must be performed from the back of the neck (oref), whereas shechita must be performed from the front or the sides of the neck.

Slaughterers who failed to show their knives to a Chacham (Sage) for inspection were penalized, though the severity of the penalty differed depending on whether the knife was subsequently found to be smooth or notched. The teeth of a harvest sickle incline in one direction; therefore, if one used it to slaughter in the direction that cuts cleanly without tearing, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute its validity. However, Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that both agree the slaughter is invalid, and their actual debate is whether the animal is classified as a neveila (a carcass, which imparts impurity) or a treifa. The windpipe features a large ring at the top that encircles it entirely, unlike the lower rings which are C-shaped and do not completely cover it. The Mishna presents two opinions regarding the highest anatomical point where slaughter can be performed without being disqualified by hagrama (slanting outside the designated slaughter area). The Tanna Kama rules that the large ring must be completely severed while leaving a width of a thread of the top ring untouched. Conversely, Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda rules that as long as the majority of the windpipe is cut in the valid area, the slaughter is kosher, even if the slaughterer subsequently cuts above it into the area known as "the hat" (kova) - since the act was legally complete once the majority was cut. Rav and Shmuel explain that Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda also forbade slaughtering directly on the smaller rings, permitting it only between them since they do not encircle the entire windpipe. However, after challenging this with a contradictory braita where Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda explicitly permits slaughtering on the smaller rings, the Gemara concludes that Rav and Shmuel agreed with his view regarding the large ring but ruled against his lenient stance on the smaller rings. When Rabbi Zeira moved from Babylonia to Israel and permitted slaughtering on these rings, the Sages questioned why he did not maintain the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel, given the halakhic rule that a traveler must observe the stringencies of both their place of origin and their destination. Two resolutions are suggested, each presenting different exceptions to the rules of local custom. Ultimately, the Gemara notes that customs varied across different regions of Babylonia, and not all areas adopted this stringency. There is a dispute between Rav Papi and Rav Papa regarding the exact anatomical boundary for the highest point of the windpipe where shechita remains valid.

Slaughterers who failed to show their knives to a Chacham (Sage) for inspection were penalized, though the severity of the penalty differed depending on whether the knife was subsequently found to be smooth or notched. The teeth of a harvest sickle incline in one direction; therefore, if one used it to slaughter in the direction that cuts cleanly without tearing, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute its validity. However, Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that both agree the slaughter is invalid, and their actual debate is whether the animal is classified as a neveila (a carcass, which imparts impurity) or a treifa. The windpipe features a large ring at the top that encircles it entirely, unlike the lower rings which are C-shaped and do not completely cover it. The Mishna presents two opinions regarding the highest anatomical point where slaughter can be performed without being disqualified by hagrama (slanting outside the designated slaughter area). The Tanna Kama rules that the large ring must be completely severed while leaving a width of a thread of the top ring untouched. Conversely, Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda rules that as long as the majority of the windpipe is cut in the valid area, the slaughter is kosher, even if the slaughterer subsequently cuts above it into the area known as "the hat" (kova) - since the act was legally complete once the majority was cut. Rav and Shmuel explain that Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda also forbade slaughtering directly on the smaller rings, permitting it only between them since they do not encircle the entire windpipe. However, after challenging this with a contradictory braita where Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda explicitly permits slaughtering on the smaller rings, the Gemara concludes that Rav and Shmuel agreed with his view regarding the large ring but ruled against his lenient stance on the smaller rings. When Rabbi Zeira moved from Babylonia to Israel and permitted slaughtering on these rings, the Sages questioned why he did not maintain the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel, given the halakhic rule that a traveler must observe the stringencies of both their place of origin and their destination. Two resolutions are suggested, each presenting different exceptions to the rules of local custom. Ultimately, the Gemara notes that customs varied across different regions of Babylonia, and not all areas adopted this stringency. There is a dispute between Rav Papi and Rav Papa regarding the exact anatomical boundary for the highest point of the windpipe where shechita remains valid.

Quatre candidatures présidentielles, des centaines de séquences virales, une voix qui dérange dans les débats télévisés. Philippe Poutou ne fait pas de politique comme les autres. Ancien ouvrier à Ford Blanquefort, délégué syndical devenu figure de la gauche radicale, il incarne l'exigence que la politique parlée de la classe ouvrière soit incarnée par la classe ouvrière elle-même.Dans cet entretien, il revient sur ce qui l'a mené en politique. C'est à l'usine que tout s'est joué pour lui. Là où il a découvert que parler pour les ouvriers sans les représenter était une imposture que la gauche institutionnelle s'autorisait depuis longtemps.Les séquences Poutou sur les médias mainstream sont un brin d'air frais pour les militants de gauche. Pourquoi ? Car il utilise des mots directs pour dénoncer la bourgeoisie et le racisme. Alors qu'une partie de la gauche devient timide quand il faut plaire aux médias, la a droite radicale, elle, a remporté la bataille des mots. « Ensauvagement », « grand remplacement », « wokisme », ces termes structurent désormais le débat public. Poutou, lui, refuse d'abandonner les mots qui font peur aux bien-pensants : patrons, riches, lutte des classes. Des mots « vieux », oui, mais nécessaires.La question de l'union des gauches revient inévitablement. Quelles sont les lignes rouges ? Comment faire bloc sans renier ses principes ? Et face aux électeurs qui basculent vers le RN : les convaincre ou mobiliser les abstentionnistes ?Pour 2027, Poutou hésite. Quatre fois candidat, il envisagerait de se ranger derrière Jean-Luc Mélenchon et il demande à la France Insoumise de travailler avec les mouvements « à sa gauche ». Pour finir a culture : ses artistes du moment, son dernier concert, le film politique qui l'a marqué, le livre pour comprendre notre époque.

The Mishna rules that if one slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the slaughter is valid. However, Rav asserts that the meat may not be eaten on that Shabbat, even raw. The Sages in the Yeshiva explained that Rav's position accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the laws of Shabbat, and the Gemara attempts to identify which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehuda serves as the basis for this. Rabbi Abba suggests it refers to Rabbi Yehuda's view on hachana -the requirement that an item be designated for use before Shabbat - citing the example of Rabbi Yehuda's prohibition against cutting up an animal that died on Shabbat to feed to one's dogs.  Abaye rejects this, arguing that animals intended for food are considered inherently designated for slaughter for human consumption (but not for animal consumption) even while alive, citing laws of Yom Tov as proof. Although Rabbi Abba attempts to resolve the difficulty by employing the principle of breira (retroactive designation) to understand the Yom Tov law, this is rejected as Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the concept of breira. The Gemara attempts to find the source for the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold by breira. Initially, it attempts to prove this from a case involving the separation of teruma from wine, but after rejecting that proof, the Gemara derives it from Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding eruv techumim. Rav Yosef suggests the source is Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding broken vessels that were not broken before Shabbat; these are forbidden by Rabbi Yehuda  if they cannot be used for their original function. However, this comparison is rejected because an animal can be considered "food" even before it is slaughtered. This discussion aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding liquids that seep out of fruits. The Gemara offers a third suggestion based on Shmuel's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda's view on liquids leaking from olives and grapes. Shmuel posits that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages that such liquids are forbidden to prevent one from intentionally squeezing the fruit; likewise, permitting meat from a Shabbat slaughter might lead one to intentionally slaughter an animal on Shabbat. This is rejected because Rav disagrees with Shmuel's interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda's position on grapes and olives; since the goal is to clarify Rav's own ruling, it cannot be based on a premise that Rav himself does not accept. Rabbi Sheshet suggests a fourth possibility based on Rabbi Yehuda's ruling on lamps. Rabbi Yehuda deems used lamps muktze because they are repulsive (mi'us); similarly, a living animal would be muktze because it cannot be eaten in its current state. This is also rejected, as the Gemara distinguishes between muktze due to repulsion and muktze resulting from a prohibition.

The Midrash teaches that the five Humashim – the books that comprise the Torah – are alluded to in the opening verses of the Torah, which tell of the creation of light on the first day of the world's creation. The word "Or" (light) appears five times in these verses, and they parallel the five Humashim. It follows, then, that the fourth Humash – the Book of Bamidbar, which we begin reading this Shabbat – corresponds to the fourth instance of the word "Or" in these verses: "Va'yabdel Elokim Beh Ha'or U'ben Ha'hoshech" – "G-d separated between light and the darkness" (1:4). What might be the connection between the Book of Bamidbar and the "separation" between light and darkness? The Netziv (Rav Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin of Volozhin, 1816-1893) offers a fascinating answer, by explaining the primary theme of Sefer Bamidbar. This book, he writes, traces Beneh Yisrael's transition from a miraculous existence to a natural existence. The book begins at Mount Sinai, in the desert, where Beneh Yisrael relied on G-d's miracles in order to survive. They received the manna from the heavens, and water from a supernatural well that accompanied them as they traveled. The Ananeh Ha'kabod ("clouds of glory") protected them from the elements and from enemy attack. Beneh Yisrael journeyed for forty years in a region that was ordinarily uninhabitable, under Hashem's miraculous care and protection. At the end of Sefer Bamidbar, Beneh Yisrael find themselves on the border of the Land of Israel, nearly ready to cross into the land. There they would live a natural existence – fighting wars against enemies, growing crops, building cities, and developing an economy. Of course, this natural existence would require G-d's intervention; even when leading a natural lifestyle, nothing can succeed without Hashem's help. But once they crossed into the land, Beneh Yisrael were no longer cared for miraculously; they lived in accordance with the laws of nature. This is why at the end of the Book of Bamidbar, Beneh Yisrael take up arms and fight wars. They begin preparations for the battles to conquer the land, and for the division of the land. After living a miraculous existence for forty years, they now needed to transition to a natural mode of existence. The Netziv explains that this is why Sefer Bamidbar is associated with the "separation" between light and darkness. Light symbolizes G-d's open miracles, which make His control of the world unmistakably clear and evident. By contrast, darkness symbolizes the veil of the natural world, which conceals the Hand of Providence. When nature follows its course, we do not see Hashem, though we must firmly believe that He controls all events, random and natural as they might outwardly seem. Just as darkness makes it difficult to see that which we know exists, nature makes it difficult to see Hashem's control and governance, but we know that He is behind everything and orchestrating everything that happens. Hence, Sefer Bamidbar is associated with the distinction between light and darkness – because it signifies Beneh Yisrael's transition from a supernatural existence to a natural one. The Netziv explains on this basis why the Sages calls Sefer Bamidbar "Humash Ha'pekduim" – the "Book of Countings," which later evolved into the name, "Numbers." This name refers to two censuses of Beneh Yisrael that were taken in Sefer Bamidbar. We might wonder, why are these events viewed as the primary theme and essence of this book? So much happens in the Book of Bamidbar – why would the Sages focus on the two occasions when the people were counted when choosing a name for this book? The answer, the Netziv writes, is that the two censuses signify the transition that Beneh Yisrael underwent over the course of this Sefer. The first census was conducted for the purpose of arranging Beneh Yisrael's camp around the Mishkan in the desert, whereas the second was conducted to prepare for the apportioning of the territory of Eretz Yisrael among the tribes. The difference between these two censuses reflects the difference between the "light" and the "darkness," between the miraculous existence in the desert, and the natural existence in Eretz Yisrael. Therefore, this Sefer is indeed "Humash Ha'pekudim," a book of "countings," because the two countings demonstrate the transition that constitutes the essence of this book, the transition from the miracles of the desert to life in Eretz Yisrael, where G-d cares for and protects us not overly, but behind the veil of the laws of nature.

The Mishna rules that if one slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the slaughter is valid. However, Rav asserts that the meat may not be eaten on that Shabbat, even raw. The Sages in the Yeshiva explained that Rav's position accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the laws of Shabbat, and the Gemara attempts to identify which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehuda serves as the basis for this. Rabbi Abba suggests it refers to Rabbi Yehuda's view on hachana -the requirement that an item be designated for use before Shabbat - citing the example of Rabbi Yehuda's prohibition against cutting up an animal that died on Shabbat to feed to one's dogs.  Abaye rejects this, arguing that animals intended for food are considered inherently designated for slaughter for human consumption (but not for animal consumption) even while alive, citing laws of Yom Tov as proof. Although Rabbi Abba attempts to resolve the difficulty by employing the principle of breira (retroactive designation) to understand the Yom Tov law, this is rejected as Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the concept of breira. The Gemara attempts to find the source for the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold by breira. Initially, it attempts to prove this from a case involving the separation of teruma from wine, but after rejecting that proof, the Gemara derives it from Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding eruv techumim. Rav Yosef suggests the source is Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding broken vessels that were not broken before Shabbat; these are forbidden by Rabbi Yehuda  if they cannot be used for their original function. However, this comparison is rejected because an animal can be considered "food" even before it is slaughtered. This discussion aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding liquids that seep out of fruits. The Gemara offers a third suggestion based on Shmuel's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda's view on liquids leaking from olives and grapes. Shmuel posits that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages that such liquids are forbidden to prevent one from intentionally squeezing the fruit; likewise, permitting meat from a Shabbat slaughter might lead one to intentionally slaughter an animal on Shabbat. This is rejected because Rav disagrees with Shmuel's interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda's position on grapes and olives; since the goal is to clarify Rav's own ruling, it cannot be based on a premise that Rav himself does not accept. Rabbi Sheshet suggests a fourth possibility based on Rabbi Yehuda's ruling on lamps. Rabbi Yehuda deems used lamps muktze because they are repulsive (mi'us); similarly, a living animal would be muktze because it cannot be eaten in its current state. This is also rejected, as the Gemara distinguishes between muktze due to repulsion and muktze resulting from a prohibition.

Looking through the lens provided by three central figures of the western esoteric tradition -- Hermes Trismegistus, Apollonios of Tyana, and King Solomon -- we discuss three important East Roman magical books whose influence echoes from the end of late antiquity until the present day.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba recounts a discussion between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the legal weight of a minor's intent. In the first version, the question is whether a minor's thoughts alone are significant. Rabbi Ami argues it is obvious they are not, citing a Mishna in Kelim 17:15. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that the doubt applies when a minor's action reasonably demonstrates their intent, but not completely - such as moving an animal to the northern part of the Temple courtyard, the specific area for slaughtering burnt offerings. Rabbi Ami challenges this, noting that Rabbi Yochanan himself previously ruled in the context of ritual impurity that a minor's action is significant when the minor's intent is reasonably clear from the action. Rabbi Yochanan responds that his question was whether such actions are valid by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree; the matter remains unresolved. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a different version of the discussion, focusing on whether a minor's actions are effective. This version concludes with Rabbi Yochanan distinguishing between three categories: actions with clear intent, actions with reasonably clear, but not completely clear intent, and intent without any accompanying action. Shmuel asks Rav Huna for the biblical source disqualifying sacrifices that were slaughtered without the specific intent to perform a slaughter (mitasek). The Mishna rules that meat slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered neveila (a carcass) and imparts impurity by carrying (masa). Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Ami draw different inferences from this. Rabbi Yochanan suggests the Mishna follows the Sages (against Rabbi Eliezer) in assuming that gentiles do not automatically slaughter for idolatrous purposes; if they did, the meat would be forbidden even for benefit. Rabbi Ami infers that the slaughter of a heretic (min), one who is a devout idol worshipped is strictly forbidden for any benefit, a position supported by a braita. The Gemara explains that we generally do not fear a gentile will slaughter for idolatry because they are typically not devout in their practice. However, a min is considered deeply dedicated to their worship, and their slaughter is presumed to be for an idol. Rav Nachman distinguishes between Jewish heretics and gentile heretics, showing more leniency toward the latter, though the Gemara clarifies this applies specifically to accepting their sacrifices. The shechita of one who slaughters in the dark or a blind person is accepted.

Rabbi Chiya bar Abba recounts a discussion between Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Yochanan regarding the legal weight of a minor's intent. In the first version, the question is whether a minor's thoughts alone are significant. Rabbi Ami argues it is obvious they are not, citing a Mishna in Kelim 17:15. Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that the doubt applies when a minor's action reasonably demonstrates their intent, but not completely - such as moving an animal to the northern part of the Temple courtyard, the specific area for slaughtering burnt offerings. Rabbi Ami challenges this, noting that Rabbi Yochanan himself previously ruled in the context of ritual impurity that a minor's action is significant when the minor's intent is reasonably clear from the action. Rabbi Yochanan responds that his question was whether such actions are valid by Torah law or only by Rabbinic decree; the matter remains unresolved. Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak offers a different version of the discussion, focusing on whether a minor's actions are effective. This version concludes with Rabbi Yochanan distinguishing between three categories: actions with clear intent, actions with reasonably clear, but not completely clear intent, and intent without any accompanying action. Shmuel asks Rav Huna for the biblical source disqualifying sacrifices that were slaughtered without the specific intent to perform a slaughter (mitasek). The Mishna rules that meat slaughtered by a non-Jew is considered neveila (a carcass) and imparts impurity by carrying (masa). Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Ami draw different inferences from this. Rabbi Yochanan suggests the Mishna follows the Sages (against Rabbi Eliezer) in assuming that gentiles do not automatically slaughter for idolatrous purposes; if they did, the meat would be forbidden even for benefit. Rabbi Ami infers that the slaughter of a heretic (min), one who is a devout idol worshipped is strictly forbidden for any benefit, a position supported by a braita. The Gemara explains that we generally do not fear a gentile will slaughter for idolatry because they are typically not devout in their practice. However, a min is considered deeply dedicated to their worship, and their slaughter is presumed to be for an idol. Rav Nachman distinguishes between Jewish heretics and gentile heretics, showing more leniency toward the latter, though the Gemara clarifies this applies specifically to accepting their sacrifices. The shechita of one who slaughters in the dark or a blind person is accepted.

Welcome to the SAGES Stories Podcast! In episode 36 we feature an in-depth, conversational, and engaging conversation with Dr. Bethany Slater, a first for the podcast as she is the first pediatric surgeon to be featured! Hosts Kevin El-Hayek and Jenny Shao welcome Dr. Slater to discuss her unique career path, the nuances of pediatric minimally invasive surgery (MIS), her role as chair of the SAGES Guidelines Committee, and the value of an MBA for physicians. Show notes: APSA – American Pediatric Surgical Association IPEG – International Pediatric Endosurgery Group SAGES Patient Partner Network (PPN) GRADE Working Group website. SAGES Guidelines Fellowship Job Description SAGES Guidelines

How long does the merit of the patriarchs really last?This week on Unperplexed, we explore a striking debate among the Sages—and the Rambam's surprising answer. Why do Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov still matter after generations of failure and exile? And what did they do to merit an “eternal covenant”?More importantly: could we achieve something similar ourselves?

Abaye and Rava each found support for their respective positions in a braita - Abaye from the first sentence and Rava from the second. How does each Sage address the proof cited by the other? The second case in the braita permits a Jew to rely on a Cuti and consume birds strung together, provided the Cuti eats the head of one of the birds on the string. The Gemara raises difficulties with this case: perhaps the Cuti is merely tricking the Jew, or perhaps Cutim do not hold that one must slaughter birds at all, as the requirement is not explicitly written in the Torah. The Sages resolve the latter difficulty by explaining that Cutim accepted the laws of shechita upon themselves; therefore, they can be trusted even regarding details not explicitly stated in the Torah, including all the ways in which a slaughter can be disqualified. This, however, is a Tannaitic debate: whether or not Cutim can be relied upon regarding laws not mentioned in the Torah that they are known to have accepted. A separate braita is brought to demonstrate this dispute. Rava holds that one may rely on the slaughter of a person who does not observe the laws of kashrut, specifically one who eats nevelot, provided the knife was checked beforehand. Rava's ruling is based on the principle that a person would rather perform an act in a permissible way than a forbidden way, so long as it does not require significantly more effort. This is proven from a braita regarding the chametz of those who are generally untrusted; one can eat their food after Pesach, relying on the fact that they must have traded their food with gentiles to avoid the prohibition of chametz that remained over the holiday. A Tosefta is brought to further support Rava's position, but it is subsequently rejected. The Gemara explains that the Tosefta refers to a person who worships idols, rather than one who merely consumed non-slaughtered meat. This reading is supported by a statement of Rav Anan in the name of Shmuel that one can trust the meat of a person who worships idols. The source for this is the biblical figure Yehoshafat, who ate from Achav's meat in an incident that appears in Chronicles II, Chapter 18. The Gemara raises several difficulties about deriving this law from that incident, but all difficulties are eventually resolved.

Rav Huna differentiates between those living in exile in Babylonia and those living in other places regarding their nature. Rav Chisda (or Rav) is quoted as making a statement differentiating between gentiles who live in different places in the world, specifically in reference to whether or not they recognize God and the place of the Jewish people. However, after raising a difficulty, this statement is emended. A number of Sages extrapolate different verses to highlight the importance of Torah study by comparing it to sacrifices. One view explains that God treats those who study Torah as if they have physically offered sacrifices in the Temple. Another view goes further, suggesting that one who studies Torah has no need for sacrifices at all, effectively idealizing Torah study as a superior form of divine service. The Mishna compares one who sacrifices animals to one who sacrifices birds and to one who sacrifices mincha offerings, stressing that all sacrifices are equal before God—those of the wealthy and those of the poor—as the most important element in sacrifices is the intent. Sacrifices are offered to God and are not intended for God's benefit, but for the person bringing the sacrifice, which further highlights the importance of the person's intention rather than the outward action.

On today's pages, Menachot 105 and 106, the Sages teach us that the wood used to burn the sacrifices is a sacrifice in its own right. While we often focus on the "glittery," precious offerings like fine flour or oxen, the Talmud insists that even the humble logs must be brought with salt and ceremony. How does acknowledging the "ordinary" fuel of our lives change our perspective on what truly matters? Listen and find out.

On today's page, Menachot 102, the Sages discuss how a seemingly minor technicality—like the depth of a cooking pan—can completely invalidate a sacred offering. We explore how even with the right ingredients and the right intent, a failure in physical precision can lead to a fundamentally different result. Why does the tradition insist we focus on these minute details to achieve true mastery? Listen and find out.