Podcasts about shvat

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

The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon on whether pouring of the oil of a meal offering requires a kohen is based on different ways of interpreting the verses in Vayikra 2:1-2. The Rabbis maintain that the requirement for a kohen is only mentioned from the act of scooping, or kemitza, allowing a non-kohen to handle the pouring and mixing of the oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, views the connective language in the verse as a link that binds the entire process together, necessitating a kohen for every stage. At first the Gemara suggested that Rabbi Shimon's reasoning was based on "a phrase can relate to both the upcoming and previous action," but after showing that in a different issue, Rabbi Shimon did not employ that principle, they explain the "vav"("and") connects the previous section to the kohen. Rav explains that if the words torah and chukka appear in a verse, that signifies that a failure to perform a detail exactly as described invalidates the entire offering. Through a series of challenges involving the nazir, the metzora, and the service of Yom Kippur, the Gemara refines this: if either term is employed, it indicates it is an essential detail. However, after raising a difficulty from all sacrifices, Rav's statement is further refined: the term chukka is the primary indicator of indispensability, whereas torah on its own is not. Repetition serves as another marker of necessity in the eyes of Rav, who argues that when the Torah returns to a subject multiple times, it is to emphasize that the detail is essential. This leads to a clash with Shmuel about whether or not is it essential that the scooping (kemitza) be performed by hand. Rav considers the method essential because it is repeated in the context of the Tabernacle's inauguration. Shmuel, however, holds that a one-time historical event is not a binding source for future generations. A difficulty is raised against the principle of Rav that if something is repeated, it is indispensable, as the act of hagasha, bringing the mincha offering to the Altar, is repeated and yet is listed in the Mishna as not essential. The Gemara responds by explaining that the second mention is needed for a different purpose – to pinpoint the exact location on the Altar where the mincha offering is to be brought.

Rav explained that details that are essential (me'akev) are specifically those that are repeated (appear twice) in the text. Rav Huna raises a difficulty on this assertion from the requirement of salting the offering; both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon rule that salting is essential, yet the command does not appear twice. Two answers are suggested to resolve this. Rav Yosef suggests that Rav may hold like the Tanna of our Mishna, who holds that salting is actually not essential. Another possible answer is that salting is a unique exception to the rule because the word "covenant" (brit) appears in the verse, signifying its indispensable status regardless of repetition. The Gemara then raises a difficulty with the premise of the original challenge, noting that the word for salt actually does appear twice in Vayikra 2:13. This is answered by explaining that the repetition in that verse is necessary for specific drashot found in a braita. The braita extrapolates from the verse to teach which sacrificial items require salt and which do not - concluding that while most offerings require it, wood and blood do not. After quoting the brraita in its entirety, the Gemara delves into the different sections of the text, analyzing each clause to better understand the underlying logic of these inclusions and exclusions.

Today in History: The memorial of Reverend William Hechler (of blessed memory), a Christian Zionist pioneer who died in 1931 CE (5691). Hechler was an Anglican minister who helped Theodor Herzl, the famous Jewish leader of modern Zionism. Herzl called him the “first Christian Zionist.” The two remained friends and Hechler recorded Herzl's last words, “Greet Palestine for me. I gave my heart's blood for my people.”This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 16:11–36GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 9:33–50What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something you need to do in your life?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

The dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Shimon on whether pouring of the oil of a meal offering requires a kohen is based on different ways of interpreting the verses in Vayikra 2:1-2. The Rabbis maintain that the requirement for a kohen is only mentioned from the act of scooping, or kemitza, allowing a non-kohen to handle the pouring and mixing of the oil. Rabbi Shimon, however, views the connective language in the verse as a link that binds the entire process together, necessitating a kohen for every stage. At first the Gemara suggested that Rabbi Shimon's reasoning was based on "a phrase can relate to both the upcoming and previous action," but after showing that in a different issue, Rabbi Shimon did not employ that principle, they explain the "vav"("and") connects the previous section to the kohen. Rav explains that if the words torah and chukka appear in a verse, that signifies that a failure to perform a detail exactly as described invalidates the entire offering. Through a series of challenges involving the nazir, the metzora, and the service of Yom Kippur, the Gemara refines this: if either term is employed, it indicates it is an essential detail. However, after raising a difficulty from all sacrifices, Rav's statement is further refined: the term chukka is the primary indicator of indispensability, whereas torah on its own is not. Repetition serves as another marker of necessity in the eyes of Rav, who argues that when the Torah returns to a subject multiple times, it is to emphasize that the detail is essential. This leads to a clash with Shmuel about whether or not is it essential that the scooping (kemitza) be performed by hand. Rav considers the method essential because it is repeated in the context of the Tabernacle's inauguration. Shmuel, however, holds that a one-time historical event is not a binding source for future generations. A difficulty is raised against the principle of Rav that if something is repeated, it is indispensable, as the act of hagasha, bringing the mincha offering to the Altar, is repeated and yet is listed in the Mishna as not essential. The Gemara responds by explaining that the second mention is needed for a different purpose – to pinpoint the exact location on the Altar where the mincha offering is to be brought.

Rav explained that details that are essential (me'akev) are specifically those that are repeated (appear twice) in the text. Rav Huna raises a difficulty on this assertion from the requirement of salting the offering; both Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon rule that salting is essential, yet the command does not appear twice. Two answers are suggested to resolve this. Rav Yosef suggests that Rav may hold like the Tanna of our Mishna, who holds that salting is actually not essential. Another possible answer is that salting is a unique exception to the rule because the word "covenant" (brit) appears in the verse, signifying its indispensable status regardless of repetition. The Gemara then raises a difficulty with the premise of the original challenge, noting that the word for salt actually does appear twice in Vayikra 2:13. This is answered by explaining that the repetition in that verse is necessary for specific drashot found in a braita. The braita extrapolates from the verse to teach which sacrificial items require salt and which do not - concluding that while most offerings require it, wood and blood do not. After quoting the brraita in its entirety, the Gemara delves into the different sections of the text, analyzing each clause to better understand the underlying logic of these inclusions and exclusions.

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

The Gemara explains the braita in a different way than previously to show that there is really no Tannaitic opinion that Rabbi Eliezer holds one is liable for karet if they have a pigul thought to eat something normally burned or burn something normally eaten. They explain that the braita is highlighting a three-way debate between tanna kama, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbl Elazar ben Shammua about whether in a case of someone who has a thought to leave over part of the blood until the next day without sprinkling it, would both the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer agree that is it valid, invalid or do they disagree as they do in the previous case. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yehuda's position from an intruiging story in which his position is mentioned in an interaction between Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua and Yosef the Babylonian, who repeatedly questioned Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua on this very point. The story was witnessed and told by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi when he went to the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Elazar to either learn his positions on various topics or to garner wisdom from him. In the end, the difficulty is resolved. The conclusion of the Gemara leads to the understanding the Rabbi Eliezer disqualified an offering with a thought to eat something that is normally burned, as a rabbinic ordinance. The Mishna lists various parts of the mincha offering that are not essential. The Gemara explains that when it lists pouring the oil as a non-essential action, that cannot be right, as it is essential. Therefore, they explain it must mean it can be done by a non-kohen. However, the next item in the Mishna, one does not need to mix, must be understood literally, i.e. is not essential at all, as is proven from a different sugya. The Mishna in Menachot 104a teaches that that one may volunteer a meal offering of up to sixty esronim (tenths of an ephah) in a single vessel, because sixty tenths can be properly mixed with a log (a liquid measure) of oil. However, if one volunteers sixty-one tenths, they must be brought in two separate vessels, as such a large quantity cannot be effectively mixed. Rabbi Zeira establishes a fundamental principle: "Anything that is fit for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything that is not fit for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it." This means that as long as it is physically possible to perform the mitzva of mixing, the offering is valid even if the mixing wasn't actually done. But if the quantity is so large (61 tenths) that mixing is physically impossible, the offering is disqualified even if the kohen attempts to proceed without mixing. From here it is clear, it does not need to be mixed. The Gemara suggests, and then conclusively proves, that the Mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who rules in a braita that pouring the oil must be performed by a kohen. Rav Nachman attempts to reconcile Rabbi  Shimon with the Mishna, but Rava rejects his suggestion.

This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 15:27–16:10GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 9:14–32What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something about God?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

The Gemara explains the braita in a different way than previously to show that there is really no Tannaitic opinion that Rabbi Eliezer holds one is liable for karet if they have a pigul thought to eat something normally burned or burn something normally eaten. They explain that the braita is highlighting a three-way debate between tanna kama, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbl Elazar ben Shammua about whether in a case of someone who has a thought to leave over part of the blood until the next day without sprinkling it, would both the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer agree that is it valid, invalid or do they disagree as they do in the previous case. A difficulty is raised against Rabbi Yehuda's position from an intruiging story in which his position is mentioned in an interaction between Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua and Yosef the Babylonian, who repeatedly questioned Rabbi Elazar ben Shammua on this very point. The story was witnessed and told by Rabbi Yehuda haNasi when he went to the Beit Midrash of Rabbi Elazar to either learn his positions on various topics or to garner wisdom from him. In the end, the difficulty is resolved. The conclusion of the Gemara leads to the understanding the Rabbi Eliezer disqualified an offering with a thought to eat something that is normally burned, as a rabbinic ordinance. The Mishna lists various parts of the mincha offering that are not essential. The Gemara explains that when it lists pouring the oil as a non-essential action, that cannot be right, as it is essential. Therefore, they explain it must mean it can be done by a non-kohen. However, the next item in the Mishna, one does not need to mix, must be understood literally, i.e. is not essential at all, as is proven from a different sugya. The Mishna in Menachot 104a teaches that that one may volunteer a meal offering of up to sixty esronim (tenths of an ephah) in a single vessel, because sixty tenths can be properly mixed with a log (a liquid measure) of oil. However, if one volunteers sixty-one tenths, they must be brought in two separate vessels, as such a large quantity cannot be effectively mixed. Rabbi Zeira establishes a fundamental principle: "Anything that is fit for mixing, the lack of mixing does not invalidate it; but anything that is not fit for mixing, the lack of mixing invalidates it." This means that as long as it is physically possible to perform the mitzva of mixing, the offering is valid even if the mixing wasn't actually done. But if the quantity is so large (61 tenths) that mixing is physically impossible, the offering is disqualified even if the kohen attempts to proceed without mixing. From here it is clear, it does not need to be mixed. The Gemara suggests, and then conclusively proves, that the Mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon who rules in a braita that pouring the oil must be performed by a kohen. Rav Nachman attempts to reconcile Rabbi  Shimon with the Mishna, but Rava rejects his suggestion.

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

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

The sharp scholars (charifei) of Pumbedita argue that one burning can create pigul for another. Specifically, if one burns the kometz (handful) with the intention to burn the levona (frankincense) outside its designated time, it becomes pigul. They explain that even the Rabbis - who generally hold that a pigul thought during only half of a permitting act (matir) is ineffective - would agree here, because the levona was included in the person's thoughts. Rava supports this from the general rule in the Mishna, however, his proof is rejected as it is inconclusive. Rav Hisda, however, cites Rav to argue that one burning cannot create pigul for another. He reasons that since the kometz is not the permitting agent (matir) for the levona, an intention concerning burning the levona during the burning of the kometz is irrelevant. A proof is brought for this from a case involving the two lambs of Shavuot, but it is countered by distinguishing between items in separate vessels versus items in the same vessel. Rav Hamnuna presents a unique case that he considers of immense value, where the pigul thought "spreads" through the entire process. If one burns the kometz with intent to burn the levona tomorrow, and with intent to eat the shirayim (remnants) tomorrow, the offering is pigul. This is because the thoughts combined eventually cover both the completion of the permitting acts and the consumption of the remnants. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a braita regarding a case that all agree on. At first it seems they all agree that there is pigul even if the pigul thought is only in one matir. However, since it is clear that is not the case, they edit the braita to read "pasul" instead of "pigul," as all agree that it is disqualified, even if it is not necessarily pigul. The third chapter begins with a Mishna discussing intentions regarding items not normally meant for that specific use. If one has intent during the kometz service to eat something not usually eaten (like the kometz itself) or to burn something not usually burned (like the remnants), the rabbis rule the offering valid, while Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it. Additionally, if the intention involves a quantity less than an olive-bulk, or if it combines half an olive-bulk of eating and half an olive-bulk of burning, it remains valid because eating and burning do not combine to reach the required measure for pigul. Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the double expression in the verse: "ve'im he'achol ye'achel" (and if it should surely be eaten). He understands this to include two types of "eating": human consumption and the consumption of the altar (burning). Therefore, an intention to switch these roles - intending to eat what is meant for the fire - is a valid disqualifying thought. The rabbis who disagree extrapolate that verse in a different manner, either to include a case of one who uses the language of eating instead of burning when having a pigul intent, or to derive the requisite amount of burning from the requisite amount for eating - an olive-bulk - meaning one who has a thought to burn less than an olive-bulk beyond its given time will not render the offering pigul. Rabbi Zeira questions Rav Asi that if Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the Torah, it should carry the penalty of karet, and yet Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that is does not. Rav Asi answer that there is a Tannaitic dispute regarding the nature of Rabbi Eliezer's disqualification: one view holds it is a Torah-level disqualification punishable by karet, while another suggests it is a Rabbinic disqualification and he brings a braita to support this. The braita discusses one who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent to drink the blood tomorrow or to burn the meat tomorrow. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies these cases, while the rabbis validate them. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar disagree in a case where one's intent was to leave the blood for tomorrow. Rabbi Yehuda says it is disqualified while Rabbi Elazar says that the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree about this as well. In trying to assess the point of disagreement between Rabbis Yehuda and Elazar, they suggest that it is on their understanding of Rabbi Eliezer's position and whether he views these cases as disqualified (rabbinic) or as pigul (Torah law, with karet). However, this understanding of the braita is rejected.

פרק לו׳ דירה בתחתונים

The Psychology Behind the Parsha Parshas B'Shalach To Complain or To Listen? 

The sharp scholars (charifei) of Pumbedita argue that one burning can create pigul for another. Specifically, if one burns the kometz (handful) with the intention to burn the levona (frankincense) outside its designated time, it becomes pigul. They explain that even the Rabbis - who generally hold that a pigul thought during only half of a permitting act (matir) is ineffective - would agree here, because the levona was included in the person's thoughts. Rava supports this from the general rule in the Mishna, however, his proof is rejected as it is inconclusive. Rav Hisda, however, cites Rav to argue that one burning cannot create pigul for another. He reasons that since the kometz is not the permitting agent (matir) for the levona, an intention concerning burning the levona during the burning of the kometz is irrelevant. A proof is brought for this from a case involving the two lambs of Shavuot, but it is countered by distinguishing between items in separate vessels versus items in the same vessel. Rav Hamnuna presents a unique case that he considers of immense value, where the pigul thought "spreads" through the entire process. If one burns the kometz with intent to burn the levona tomorrow, and with intent to eat the shirayim (remnants) tomorrow, the offering is pigul. This is because the thoughts combined eventually cover both the completion of the permitting acts and the consumption of the remnants. The chapter concludes with a discussion of a braita regarding a case that all agree on. At first it seems they all agree that there is pigul even if the pigul thought is only in one matir. However, since it is clear that is not the case, they edit the braita to read "pasul" instead of "pigul," as all agree that it is disqualified, even if it is not necessarily pigul. The third chapter begins with a Mishna discussing intentions regarding items not normally meant for that specific use. If one has intent during the kometz service to eat something not usually eaten (like the kometz itself) or to burn something not usually burned (like the remnants), the rabbis rule the offering valid, while Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies it. Additionally, if the intention involves a quantity less than an olive-bulk, or if it combines half an olive-bulk of eating and half an olive-bulk of burning, it remains valid because eating and burning do not combine to reach the required measure for pigul. Rabbi Asi in the name of Rabbi Yochanan explains that Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the double expression in the verse: "ve'im he'achol ye'achel" (and if it should surely be eaten). He understands this to include two types of "eating": human consumption and the consumption of the altar (burning). Therefore, an intention to switch these roles - intending to eat what is meant for the fire - is a valid disqualifying thought. The rabbis who disagree extrapolate that verse in a different manner, either to include a case of one who uses the language of eating instead of burning when having a pigul intent, or to derive the requisite amount of burning from the requisite amount for eating - an olive-bulk - meaning one who has a thought to burn less than an olive-bulk beyond its given time will not render the offering pigul. Rabbi Zeira questions Rav Asi that if Rabbi Eliezer derives his position from the Torah, it should carry the penalty of karet, and yet Rav Asi said in the name of Rabbi Yochanan that is does not. Rav Asi answer that there is a Tannaitic dispute regarding the nature of Rabbi Eliezer's disqualification: one view holds it is a Torah-level disqualification punishable by karet, while another suggests it is a Rabbinic disqualification and he brings a braita to support this. The braita discusses one who slaughters a sacrifice with the intent to drink the blood tomorrow or to burn the meat tomorrow. Rabbi Eliezer disqualifies these cases, while the rabbis validate them. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Elazar disagree in a case where one's intent was to leave the blood for tomorrow. Rabbi Yehuda says it is disqualified while Rabbi Elazar says that the rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer disagree about this as well. In trying to assess the point of disagreement between Rabbis Yehuda and Elazar, they suggest that it is on their understanding of Rabbi Eliezer's position and whether he views these cases as disqualified (rabbinic) or as pigul (Torah law, with karet). However, this understanding of the braita is rejected.

Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether the meal offering can become pigul if the pigul thought was only during part of the permitting act (matir), such as during the burning of the kometz, but not the burning of the frankincense, or the slaughtering of one sheep of the two sheep offerings on Shavuot. Rabbi Meir holds that it is pigul, while the rabbis do not. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding this debate. Rav holds that if the first action included a pigul thought, while the second was performed in silence, it is pigul, even according to the rabbis, as the second action follows the first and is considered to have been performed with the same thought. Shmuel disagrees and holds that silence following a pigul thought does not render the item pigul according to the rabbis, who require pigul in both actions that are considered a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's position from two different sources from the Tosefta. The first is resolved but the second is only partially resolved, i.e., according to one position in a different debate. A question is raised on the Tosefta quoted previously. If one is not punished by karet in a case of pigul unless the rest of the sacrifice was brought properly, in the case of the sacrifice on Yom Kippur, if one had a pigul thought while sprinkling the first set of blood, but not the next, how could Rabbi Meir call this pigul as the next sets of blood are considered like sprinkling water, as the sacrifice is already disqualified since the earlier sprinkling of blood is invalid. Raba and Rava each provide solutions to this problem. If one had a pigul thought while bringing the kometz to the altar, is that considered half a matir, as also the frankincense needs to be brought to the altar? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree. Rabbi Yochanan views it like taking the kometz, and it is therefore considered a whole matir. He holds that bringing it to the altar is not actually a matir, but an important part of the service and therefore a pigul thought will disqualify the sacrifice even if there is a parallel action (bringing the frankincense to the altar) that is not performed with a pigul thought. Reish Lakish views it like the burning of the kometz and is only half a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan, from our Mishna and a braita, and are both resolved, and one against Reish Lakish which is left unresolved. If one burned a tiny amount with a thought to eat a tiny amount beyond its designated time, and continually does this until the whole thing is burned and the thoughts cover the whole remainder, is it pigul. Three rabbis disagree – one says it's pigul, one says it is disqualified and the third says it's permitted. At first they think they each are based on a different opinion – Rabbi Meir, the rabbis and Rebbi. But this suggestion is rejected and it is explained to be based on whether one views a burning of a tiny amount as a proper act of burning and the eating of a tiny amount as a proper act of eating.

This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 14:26–15:26GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 9:2–13What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something you need to do in your life?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 14:15–25GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 8:22–9:1What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something about God?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

Rabbi Meir and the rabbis disagree about whether the meal offering can become pigul if the pigul thought was only during part of the permitting act (matir), such as during the burning of the kometz, but not the burning of the frankincense, or the slaughtering of one sheep of the two sheep offerings on Shavuot. Rabbi Meir holds that it is pigul, while the rabbis do not. Rav and Shmuel disagree regarding this debate. Rav holds that if the first action included a pigul thought, while the second was performed in silence, it is pigul, even according to the rabbis, as the second action follows the first and is considered to have been performed with the same thought. Shmuel disagrees and holds that silence following a pigul thought does not render the item pigul according to the rabbis, who require pigul in both actions that are considered a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's position from two different sources from the Tosefta. The first is resolved but the second is only partially resolved, i.e., according to one position in a different debate. A question is raised on the Tosefta quoted previously. If one is not punished by karet in a case of pigul unless the rest of the sacrifice was brought properly, in the case of the sacrifice on Yom Kippur, if one had a pigul thought while sprinkling the first set of blood, but not the next, how could Rabbi Meir call this pigul as the next sets of blood are considered like sprinkling water, as the sacrifice is already disqualified since the earlier sprinkling of blood is invalid. Raba and Rava each provide solutions to this problem. If one had a pigul thought while bringing the kometz to the altar, is that considered half a matir, as also the frankincense needs to be brought to the altar? Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish disagree. Rabbi Yochanan views it like taking the kometz, and it is therefore considered a whole matir. He holds that bringing it to the altar is not actually a matir, but an important part of the service and therefore a pigul thought will disqualify the sacrifice even if there is a parallel action (bringing the frankincense to the altar) that is not performed with a pigul thought. Reish Lakish views it like the burning of the kometz and is only half a matir. Two difficulties are raised against Rabbi Yochanan, from our Mishna and a braita, and are both resolved, and one against Reish Lakish which is left unresolved. If one burned a tiny amount with a thought to eat a tiny amount beyond its designated time, and continually does this until the whole thing is burned and the thoughts cover the whole remainder, is it pigul. Three rabbis disagree – one says it's pigul, one says it is disqualified and the third says it's permitted. At first they think they each are based on a different opinion – Rabbi Meir, the rabbis and Rebbi. But this suggestion is rejected and it is explained to be based on whether one views a burning of a tiny amount as a proper act of burning and the eating of a tiny amount as a proper act of eating.

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

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

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

This week the universe invites us to pause, reflect, and reconnect with what freedom truly means in our lives - not the fleeting kind that comes from avoiding discomfort, but the deeper sense of liberation that leads to growth, clarity, and lasting fulfillment.As the energy of the week and month unfolds, we are guided to examine where we may be settling, holding back, or staying loyal to an outdated version of ourselves —and what becomes possible when we're willing to face what limits us. With spiritual insight and grounded perspective, this week can create space for awareness, courage, and meaningful change.Whether you're feeling stuck, restless, or simply ready for more, this episode offers a powerful lens for navigating the days ahead and beginning a more authentic journey forward. Join us for the next episode of Weekly Energy Boost with @ElishevaBalas and @EitanYardeni. Watch LIVE Sundays at 10 am PT / 1 pm ET on The Kabbalah Centre YouTube or catch the latest episode wherever you listen to podcasts. Find out more about our work, dig into our archives, and send us a message at: www.weeklyenergyboost.com.You can also help make Weekly Energy Boost possible by making a tax-deductible contribution at: www.weeklyenergyboost.com/donate-today.

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

Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate in the Mishna whether a pigul thought about eating one of the two loaves, while slaughtering both sheep of the Shavuot offering, would render only one loaf pigul or both. Rav Huna explains that Rabbi Yosi, who held that only one loaf is disqualified, would hold the same for a pigul thought about one limb of an animal sacrifice - and only that limb, and not the others, would be pigul. The Gemara brings a braita as a difficulty against Rav Huna. Since the braita cannot be explained according to the rabbis, it can only be explained according to Rabbi Yosi; however, the braita shows that the two breads combine to a requisite amount of an olive-bulk. That implies that the breads are viewed as one unit, and all the more so regarding parts of an animal's body. They attempt to emend the braita to fit with the rabbis' position, but that attempt is rejected due to the language of the braita. Rav Ashi and Ravina each raise difficulties for Rav Huna's position from other tannaitic sources. Rabbi Yochanan explains Rabbi Yosi's position and finds a way to reconcile it with the braita as well, by using drashot on the verses that lead to halakhot regarding the breads, which show that sometimes they are viewed as one unit and sometimes as two. Likewise, in the Mishna and braita—if the kohen does not combine them in his thoughts, they are treated as separate. If he does, they are considered combined. A braita explains that a thought during slaughtering can combine with a thought about sprinkling the blood to reach a requisite amount. A difficulty is raised from a braita of Levi. Rava tries to reconcile the braita with Rebbi's position, but Abaye rejects his suggestion. Even though a difficulty is raised against Abaye, he resolves it.  

This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 14:9–14GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 8:1–21What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something you need to do in your life?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

This week's portion is called Bo (Come)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 13:1–16HAFTARAH: Jeremiah 46:13–28APOSTLES: Matthew 26:17–29How does the Haftarah connect to this week's Torah Portion?How do the Apostles connect to this week's Torah Portion?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

Year 5710 (1950)

Insights and Stories of the Previous Rebbe

Rabbi Yosi and the rabbis debate in the Mishna whether a pigul thought about eating one of the two loaves, while slaughtering both sheep of the Shavuot offering, would render only one loaf pigul or both. Rav Huna explains that Rabbi Yosi, who held that only one loaf is disqualified, would hold the same for a pigul thought about one limb of an animal sacrifice - and only that limb, and not the others, would be pigul. The Gemara brings a braita as a difficulty against Rav Huna. Since the braita cannot be explained according to the rabbis, it can only be explained according to Rabbi Yosi; however, the braita shows that the two breads combine to a requisite amount of an olive-bulk. That implies that the breads are viewed as one unit, and all the more so regarding parts of an animal's body. They attempt to emend the braita to fit with the rabbis' position, but that attempt is rejected due to the language of the braita. Rav Ashi and Ravina each raise difficulties for Rav Huna's position from other tannaitic sources. Rabbi Yochanan explains Rabbi Yosi's position and finds a way to reconcile it with the braita as well, by using drashot on the verses that lead to halakhot regarding the breads, which show that sometimes they are viewed as one unit and sometimes as two. Likewise, in the Mishna and braita—if the kohen does not combine them in his thoughts, they are treated as separate. If he does, they are considered combined. A braita explains that a thought during slaughtering can combine with a thought about sprinkling the blood to reach a requisite amount. A difficulty is raised from a braita of Levi. Rava tries to reconcile the braita with Rebbi's position, but Abaye rejects his suggestion. Even though a difficulty is raised against Abaye, he resolves it.  

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

This week's portion is called Beshalach (When he sent)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 13:17–14:8GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 7:14–37What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something about God?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

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

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

The Mishna details the cases in which a meal-offering (mincha) becomes pigul (disqualified due to improper intent), carrying the penalty of karet (divine excision), and the cases where it is merely disqualified (pasul) without the liability of karet. A question is raised: According to the opinion that if the remnants (shirayim) were diminished between the removal of the handful (kemitza) and the burning of the handful (haktara), one still burns the handful - even though the remnants may not be eaten - does this act of burning still "count" regarding the laws of pigul (such that it is considered as if the rest was offered according to the law)? Furthermore, does it function to remove the prohibition of meila, misuse of consecrated property from the remaining remnants? Rav Huna and Rava both compare this case to a disqualification caused by the offering "leaving" its designated area (yotzei), but they do so from opposite directions - disputing whether yotzei is a more stringent or more lenient type of disqualification. Rava proves his position based on an emendation made by Rabbi Hiyya to the text of our Mishna. Abaye, however, rejects this proof. Ultimately, Rava retracts his initial stance based on a different source. Abaye rejects this argument as well.  

Study Guide The Mishna states that an intent to eat half an olive-bulk and an intent to burn half an olive-bulk do not combine to create a status of pigul. The Gemara infers from this Mishna that two intents regarding eating - one concerning an item meant to be eaten and one concerning an item not meant to be eaten - would indeed combine to render the item pigul. This inference, however, contradicts the previous Mishna. Rabbi Yirmia simply rules that this Mishna follows a different opinion than the previous one, while Abaye rejects the inference entirely. The second chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Yosi and the Rabbis regarding whether a pigul thought about burning the incense beyond the proper time would disqualify the mincha and render the remainder pigul. Reish Lakish explains the basis for Rabbi Yosi's position, that it is not pigul, as he holds that one permitter (matir) cannot turn another matir into pigul. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's explanation, but it is ultimately resolved. Rabbi Yannai rules that a kohen must collect the frankincense, and if this was performed by a non-kohen, it is disqualified. Rabbi Yirmia explains the reasoning by comparing it to holacha (conveying the offering to the altar), which requires a kohen. A difficulty is raised against this comparison, but it is resolved. Rav Meri brings a proof for Rabbi Yannai, but it is rejected. The Mishna raises a debate concerning offerings that consist of several parts—such as the two lambs and two loaves of bread (on Shavuot) or the two bowls of frankincense and two sets of six loaves of the showbread (Lechem HaPanim). The question is whether pigul thoughts during the sacrificing of the lambs or the burning of the frankincense regarding only a portion of the bread (e.g., one of the loaves) render all the loaves pigul.

This week's portion is called Bo (Come)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 12:29–51GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 7:1–13What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something about God?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

The Henry and Lisa Manoucheri Parsha Shiur Parshas Bo  AN AMERICA LITMUS TEST- Pyramids, Power Structures, and NATO Vs Discernment, Scruples, Refinement & FREEDOM

The Psychology Behind the Parsha Parshas Bo  By Your Identity You Will Live

The Mishna details the cases in which a meal-offering (mincha) becomes pigul (disqualified due to improper intent), carrying the penalty of karet (divine excision), and the cases where it is merely disqualified (pasul) without the liability of karet. A question is raised: According to the opinion that if the remnants (shirayim) were diminished between the removal of the handful (kemitza) and the burning of the handful (haktara), one still burns the handful - even though the remnants may not be eaten - does this act of burning still "count" regarding the laws of pigul (such that it is considered as if the rest was offered according to the law)? Furthermore, does it function to remove the prohibition of meila, misuse of consecrated property from the remaining remnants? Rav Huna and Rava both compare this case to a disqualification caused by the offering "leaving" its designated area (yotzei), but they do so from opposite directions - disputing whether yotzei is a more stringent or more lenient type of disqualification. Rava proves his position based on an emendation made by Rabbi Hiyya to the text of our Mishna. Abaye, however, rejects this proof. Ultimately, Rava retracts his initial stance based on a different source. Abaye rejects this argument as well.  

Study Guide The Mishna states that an intent to eat half an olive-bulk and an intent to burn half an olive-bulk do not combine to create a status of pigul. The Gemara infers from this Mishna that two intents regarding eating - one concerning an item meant to be eaten and one concerning an item not meant to be eaten - would indeed combine to render the item pigul. This inference, however, contradicts the previous Mishna. Rabbi Yirmia simply rules that this Mishna follows a different opinion than the previous one, while Abaye rejects the inference entirely. The second chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Yosi and the Rabbis regarding whether a pigul thought about burning the incense beyond the proper time would disqualify the mincha and render the remainder pigul. Reish Lakish explains the basis for Rabbi Yosi's position, that it is not pigul, as he holds that one permitter (matir) cannot turn another matir into pigul. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's explanation, but it is ultimately resolved. Rabbi Yannai rules that a kohen must collect the frankincense, and if this was performed by a non-kohen, it is disqualified. Rabbi Yirmia explains the reasoning by comparing it to holacha (conveying the offering to the altar), which requires a kohen. A difficulty is raised against this comparison, but it is resolved. Rav Meri brings a proof for Rabbi Yannai, but it is rejected. The Mishna raises a debate concerning offerings that consist of several parts—such as the two lambs and two loaves of bread (on Shavuot) or the two bowls of frankincense and two sets of six loaves of the showbread (Lechem HaPanim). The question is whether pigul thoughts during the sacrificing of the lambs or the burning of the frankincense regarding only a portion of the bread (e.g., one of the loaves) render all the loaves pigul.

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

When a Kohen performs the kemitza, the presence of a pebble, a grain of salt, or a shard of frankincense within the handful renders the offering invalid. This is because the Torah requires a precise "handful," and these foreign objects either displace the necessary flour (making it "missing"). The Gemara explains the need for the Mishna to bring all these examples. Rava explains that kemitza is performed with all five fingers. Abaye questions this from a braita that explains the need for all five fingers, as can be seen from the name of each of the fingers. The fourth finger is called kemitza, implying that only the three middle fingers are used for kemitza. To resolve this Rava explains that all five fingers are used but not all for the scooping. The kohen extends his three middle fingers over his palm to gather the dough, while simultaneously using his thumb and pinky to level the scoop by wiping away any excess flour protruding from the edges. This ensures the volume is exactly the capacity of his palm. This is one of the most difficult actions to be performed in the Temple, among them melika and chafina. Rav Papa questions whether non-traditional methods - such as scooping with the fingertips facing down, or in other atypical ways, are valid, ultimately leaving these queries unresolved. He also questions different methods of chafina of the incense that the kohen gadol does on Yom Kippur. Rav Papa and Mar bar Rav Ashi question atypical ways of placing the kometz in the sanctified vessel. All these questions are left unresolved. If there is too much oil or too little added to the mincha offering it is disqualified. There is a discussion about how much is too much and in what cases does it disqualify. Regarding the frankincense (levona), there is a dispute regarding the minimum amount required for the offering to remain valid. Rabbi Meir holds that a full handful must be present, while Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon allow for a reduction to two granules or even a single granule, respectively. There is a debate about whether these three opinions are only relevant in frankincense brought as a supplement to a meal offering or also when the frankincense is brought as its own offering. The validity of the meal offering is also tied to the kohen's mental intent (machshava). If the kohen intends, while taking the kometz (parallel to the act of slaughtering an animal) to eat the remains or burn the handful of the meal offering or the frankincense outside the Temple courtyard, the offering is disqualified but does not carry the penalty of karet. However, if he intends to consume or burn the offering outside its designated timeframe (the following day), the offering becomes pigul. This status not only invalidates the sacrifice but also makes anyone who eats it liable for the punishment of karet.

If There Was One Thing You Can Give Your Child, What Would It Be? What Our Generation Needs MostThis text-based class is the ninth and last one in a series on the Maamar (discourse) Basi Legani, presented by the Lubavitcher Rebbe at the Farbrengen of 10 Shvat 5726, January 31, 1966. This class was presented on Thursday, 4 Shevat, 5786, January 22, 2026, Parshas Bo, at Bais Medrash Ohr Chaim in Monsey, NY. The class presents a summation of the Basi Legani 5726 discourse, finding the secret treasure given by the King to His soldiers so they can triumph in the final battle. We explore how bliss is the glue of creation, and the underlying heartbeat and soul of all existence. The deepest, most essential Divine bliss and pleasure, inaccessible because it is essentially beyond any grasp and definition, is shared with us. We discuss the meaning of the Garden, the snake, and the Tree of Knowledge; how the Baal Shem Tov came to heal the world and our people from the profound sense of anxiety, shame, and guilt that paralyzes us emotionally, and how we can recognize the "snake" inside of us, and lean in to love being communicated every moment, even when feel alone and detached. View Source Sheets: https://portal.theyeshiva.net/api/source-sheets/9856

Study Guide The section of the Torah concerning the metzora (leper) details two distinct tracks for sacrifices: one for the wealthy, who bring three animal offerings, and a modified track for the poor. The purification process involves pouring oil into the kohen's left hand, followed by sprinkling it toward the parochet and placing it on the leper's right ear, thumb, and toe. Notably, the text contains several seemingly superfluous phrases in the wealthy leper's section, as well as extensive repetitions in the poor leper's section that could have been simplified with a cross-reference like "as mentioned above." Rabbi Zeira and Rava offer different explanations for these repetitions. Both scholars derive that the kemitza of the mincha (meal offering) must be performed with the right hand, but they reach this conclusion via different paths. Rabbi Zeira learns it from the fourfold mention of the word "left" in the leper section. In contrast, Rava utilizes a gezeira shava based on the word "right" used in the context of placing oil on the leper's ear, thumb, and toe, applying that requirement to the kemitza. Reish Lakish teaches a broader principle: whenever the Torah uses the words "finger" (etzba) or "kohen" the service must be performed with the right hand. While the Gemara initially assumes both words must appear together to trigger this requirement, Rava clarifies that either word alone is sufficient. However, following a challenge from Abaye, Rava distinguishes between two scenarios: in cases where the action is essential for atonement, either word indicates the right hand; in cases where the action is not essential for atonement, both words must be present to mandate the right hand. A difficulty is raised against Rava's explanation based on the position of Rabbi Shimon. To resolve this, the Gemara suggests that Rabbi Shimon requires both words in all instances. Two subsequent challenges to this theory and one is resolved by further refining Rabbi Shimon's position: the appearance of the word "finger" alone necessitates the right hand, but the word "kohen" does not, unless it appears in conjunction with "finger." If Rava holds that "finger" or "kohen" already serves as an indicator for using the right hand, why did he originally use a gezeira shava to learn this regarding kemitza? The Gemara explains that he requires two separate derivations - one for the act of kemitza itself and another for placing the kometz into a sanctified vessel. This theory is again questioned in light of Rabbi Shimon's view that the kometz does not require a vessel at all. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes the gezeira shava (for Rabbi Shimon) is necessary for the sinner's meal offering; otherwise, one might have thought it could be performed with the left hand, as, according to Rabbi Shimon himself, this specific offering is not intended to be mehudar (ornate or distinguished).

This week's portion is called Bo (Come)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 11:4–12:20GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 6:21–34What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something about God?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

This week's portion is called Bo (Come)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 12:21–28GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 6:35–56What verse spoke to you most today and why?Did you learn something you need to do in your life?Daily Bread for Kids is a daily Bible reading podcast where we read through the Torah and the Gospels in one year! Helping young Bible-readers to study God's Word, while also discovering its Jewish context!THE KIDS' JOURNAL is available from ⁠⁠⁠⁠https://arielmedia.shop⁠⁠⁠⁠BUSY MOMS who want to follow the Daily Bread readings on podcast for adults, can go to ⁠⁠https://dailybreadmoms.com⁠⁠The Bible translation we are reading from is the Tree of Life Version (TLV) available from the Tree of Life Bible Society.INSTAGRAM: @dailybreadkids @arielmediabooks @dailybreadmomsTags: #DailyBreadMoms #DailyBreadJournal #BibleJournaling #Messianic #BiblePodcast #BiblicalFeasts #Journal #biblereadingplan #Messiah #JewishRoots #Yeshua #GodIsInControl #OneYearBible #MomLife #MotherCulture #FaithFilledMama #BiblicalWomanhood #Proverbs31woman

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

Earlier, Rabbi Yochanan employed the principle that something that takes place in the Temple courtyard can obviously also be performed in the Sanctuary (such as slaughtering the peace offering), as the Sanctuary is more sanctified. However, in a different situation, a verse is needed to derive that items permitted to be eaten in the courtyard can also be eaten in the Sanctuary (in unique circumstances). Why was a verse needed if the principle of Rabbi Yochanan could have been used? The Gemara answers by distinguishing between a ritual (slaughtering) and eating. There are three debates between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish regarding mincha (meal) offerings. First, if they are mixed outside the Temple courtyard, are they disqualified? Second, if the mincha batter is missing some part before the kemitza (handful) is taken, can it be refilled? Third, if the remainder is missing a part after the kometz is taken, can the kemitza be burned? In each debate, the Gemara explains the reasoning behind each approach. In all three instances, a support is brought for Rabbi Yochanan or a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's position which remains unanswered. In the third debate, a difficulty is also raised against Rabbi Yochanan's position but is resolved. The Mishna ruled that if the kohen performs the kemitza with his left hand, it is disqualified. The source for this is that when explaining the process of the leper's purification, the text specifically says "left hand." Since the text regarding the mincha offering simply says "hand" without the word "left," we can assume that if an action can be done with the left, the Torah will specifically say "left"; conversely, if it appears without specifying a hand, it must refer to the right hand. The Gemara questions this drasha, suggesting that perhaps the verse is not intended to teach about other mentions of the word "hand." However, after pointing out that the phrase "left hand" appears four times in the section on the leper's purification, it becomes clear that the repetition comes to teach that in other cases where the word "hand" is mentioned, it refers exclusively to the right hand.