Podcasts about Tevet

As we step into the Hebrew month of Shavat (Shevat) beginning January 18 at sundown, God is ushering His people out of the purification of Tevet and into a powerful season of abundance, fruitfulness, righteousness, and fresh outpouring.This month is a transition from purification to abundancy, from consecration to outpouring. Expect fresh oil. Expect living water. Expect multiplication. Expect spiritual fruitfulness.Declare with Dr. Candice:“I have passed through purification, and now I step into abundancy in Jesus' Name!”Key Scriptures:• Esther 2:16• John 15• Zechariah 1:7–8• Psalm 92:12–13• Romans 11:16• Joshua 6–8Important Hebrew Calendar Insights:Shavat = rainfall, abundance, and blessingTu B'Shvat = spiritual fruitfulness & new growthAsher = joy, favor, prosperity, enduranceAquarius imagery = outpouring of water and oilTzadik = righteousness that leads to flourishingJoin Ascend Classes — FREE impartation & activation monthlyThursday February 12 at 10 am and 6 pm est http://bit.ly/4gfRKXmIn USA get your copy of my new book "Cracking the Time Code" to defeat delay and secure God's promises https://www.candicesmithyman.com/shop/p/preorder-cracking-the-time-code-step-into-supernatural-acceleration-stop-cycles-of-delay-and-secure-gods-promises-todayNext Class Thursday February 12 2026 lat 2 pm est- Sign up for “Kingdom Wealth Strategies” for a 6 month COACHING in how to increase prosperity - excellent for marketplace ministry leaders and thoseWanting to dig deeper into God's plan for wealth and prosperous living.https://dream-mentors-transformational-life-coaching.teachable.com/l/pdp/kingdom-wealth-strategies-class-prophetic-communityGet your copy of “365 Prophetic Revelations from the Hebrew Calendar”Www.candicesmithyman.com or out of USA go to https://amzn.to/4aQYoR0https://amzn.to/4aQYoR0Enroll in Soul Transformation and Dream Mentors 101 to become a credentialed biblical life coachWww.dreammentors.orgPodcast: Manifest His Presence on SpotifyEvents & Itinerary:https://candicesmithyman.com/eventsVisit: CandiceSmithyman.com for books, courses, & prophetic resources

According to Yosi ben Yasiyan and Rabbi Yehuda the Baker, ben Beteira permits returning a kometz taken in a disqualified manner to the original dough, provided it has not yet been placed in a sanctified vessel. Rav Nachman challenges this ruling: if taking the kometz is a significant ritual, the act should be irreversible; if it is not, placing it in a sanctified vessel should be meaningless. Rav Nachman resolves this by explaining that while taking the kometz is indeed a ritual act, it is not complete until the kometz is placed in the vessel. If so, the Gemara objects, returning the kometz to the original dough - which is also held in a sanctified vessel - should complete the act and permanently disqualify it. This difficulty is answered in two ways. Rabbi Yochanan answers that one can derive a principle from here: sanctified vessels only sanctify items if they are placed inside with intent to sanctify. The Gemara questions this assumption, noting that it implies one could intentionally sanctify disqualified items; yet, Rabbi Yochanan previously answered Reish Lakish that disqualified items cannot be sanctified for the altar by being placed in a sanctified vessel. This contradiction is resolved by distinguishing between sanctifying an item to permit it to be offered on the altar (which is not effective) and sanctifying an item merely to disqualify it (which is effective). Rav Amram answers the original question by qualifying the case to when the kometz is returned to a heaping bowl. As a sanctified vessel only sanctifies what is within the walls of the vessel, the kometz is not sanctified to be disqualified when placed back in the original vessel. After raising a difficulty regarding the reality of this case, his answer is partially modified to a level bowl, not heaping. Rabbi Yirmia tells Rabbi Zeira that he derives from the fact that they did not suggest returning it to the vessel when it was on the ground, that the actions of kemitza do not need to be performed while a kohen is holding the vessel in his hands. Rabbi Zeira points out that this was an issue raised by Rav Nachman to Avimi, who explained that the kohen indeed needs to be holding the vessel. Rav Sheshet disagrees, holding that the Kohen does not need to be holding the vessel for all the actions of kemitza. He derives this from the laws of the Showbread, as he understands from a Mishna that the kohanim did not hold up the Table when the Showbread and bowls of frankincense was switched at the end of each week. Rav brings a third position: The first two actions - placing the dough in the bowl and taking the kemitza - do not require the kohen to be holding the vessel, but the kometz must be placed in a vessel held by a kohen, as it is parallel to accepting the blood of a sacrifice.

Yom Shabbat Service - 28 Tevet, 5786 / January 17, 2026     Parshat Vaera - I appeared   Torah: Exodus 6:2-9:35 Haftarah: Ezekiel 28:25-29:21

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

According to Yosi ben Yasiyan and Rabbi Yehuda the Baker, ben Beteira permits returning a kometz taken in a disqualified manner to the original dough, provided it has not yet been placed in a sanctified vessel. Rav Nachman challenges this ruling: if taking the kometz is a significant ritual, the act should be irreversible; if it is not, placing it in a sanctified vessel should be meaningless. Rav Nachman resolves this by explaining that while taking the kometz is indeed a ritual act, it is not complete until the kometz is placed in the vessel. If so, the Gemara objects, returning the kometz to the original dough - which is also held in a sanctified vessel - should complete the act and permanently disqualify it. This difficulty is answered in two ways. Rabbi Yochanan answers that one can derive a principle from here: sanctified vessels only sanctify items if they are placed inside with intent to sanctify. The Gemara questions this assumption, noting that it implies one could intentionally sanctify disqualified items; yet, Rabbi Yochanan previously answered Reish Lakish that disqualified items cannot be sanctified for the altar by being placed in a sanctified vessel. This contradiction is resolved by distinguishing between sanctifying an item to permit it to be offered on the altar (which is not effective) and sanctifying an item merely to disqualify it (which is effective). Rav Amram answers the original question by qualifying the case to when the kometz is returned to a heaping bowl. As a sanctified vessel only sanctifies what is within the walls of the vessel, the kometz is not sanctified to be disqualified when placed back in the original vessel. After raising a difficulty regarding the reality of this case, his answer is partially modified to a level bowl, not heaping. Rabbi Yirmia tells Rabbi Zeira that he derives from the fact that they did not suggest returning it to the vessel when it was on the ground, that the actions of kemitza do not need to be performed while a kohen is holding the vessel in his hands. Rabbi Zeira points out that this was an issue raised by Rav Nachman to Avimi, who explained that the kohen indeed needs to be holding the vessel. Rav Sheshet disagrees, holding that the Kohen does not need to be holding the vessel for all the actions of kemitza. He derives this from the laws of the Showbread, as he understands from a Mishna that the kohanim did not hold up the Table when the Showbread and bowls of frankincense was switched at the end of each week. Rav brings a third position: The first two actions - placing the dough in the bowl and taking the kemitza - do not require the kohen to be holding the vessel, but the kometz must be placed in a vessel held by a kohen, as it is parallel to accepting the blood of a sacrifice.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

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/

Today in History: Winter officially ends in Israel (according to tradition, see b.Bava Metzia 106b).This week's portion is called Bo (Come)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 10:1–11GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 5:1–13What 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

Today in History: The day Simeon died (according to tradition, see Exodus 1:6). ”Joseph died, and all his brothers and all that generation.”This week's portion is called Va'Era (I appeared)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 9:17–35HAFTARAH: Ezekiel 28:25–29:21APOSTLES: Revelation 16:1–7How 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

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Rav Sheisha brings a fifth explanation of an ambiguous line in the braita brought on Menachot 5b, "If you had raised a difficulty on the logical argument." As in all the previous explanations, also this one is rejected. Rav Ashi suggests that one could knock out the logical argument from the beginning as perhaps one could not even bring a kal v'chomer from blemished animals as they have a stringency. This suggestion of Rav Ashi is modified a few times and ultimately his explanation is that if one were to make a kal v'chomer with both blemished animals and ones born not through natural childbirth, one could reject that kal v'chomer as they both have a stringency that is not in a treifa as they have noticeable issues, whereas a treifa is not necessarily noticeable. The braita concluded that the source for a treifa not being able to be offered on the altar is derived from "from the cattle." However, two other verses also are used to exclude a treifa. Why are all three verses necessary? The Mishna rules that any meal offering that the kemitza is done by a non-kohen, onen, impure person, etc. (i.e. not in the proper manner), is disqualified. Ben Beteira disagrees and explains that if it was done with the left hand, one returns the kometz to the pile and redoes it with the right hand. If a kohen took the kemitza but there was something else in there like a pebble or frankincense, it is invalid as the kemitza must be a precise handful, no more and no less. The Gemara first questions the language of the Mishna – why does it list the mincha offering brought for a sin together separately from the others. The answer is that the Mishna is highlighting that even according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that a sinner's offering should not be glorious, it still needs to be done properly. Even though in Zevachim, the parallel Mishna relating to sacrifices does not single out the sin offering, the Gemara explains why there was no need there to explain it according to Rabbi Shimon, but there was a need here. Rav explains that any disqualification can be fixed by redoing it. At first, they question Rav's ruling in light of the rabbis' position in the Mishna, but then they explain that Rav holds like ben Beteira and is coming to explain that even though ben Beteira only mentioned the disqualification of the left hand in the Mishna, his ruling applies for all disqualifications. The Gemara raises a difficulty on this from tannaitic sources that show that this was clear even before Rav made his statement. To resolve the difficulty, they bring a different explanation – that Rav was pointing out that ben Beteira permits it to be redone even if the kometz was placed in a sanctified vessel, which disagrees with a tannaitic opinion that it can be fixed only if it wasn't yet placed in a sanctified vessel. According to others, Rav is coming to teach the exact opposite and to show that he agrees with the tannaitic opinion that it can only be fixed if it was not yet placed in the vessel.

There are three different opinions about the status of the mincha offering of the omer that is offered for the sake of a different offering. Rav says it is completely disqualified, Reish Lakish holds it is valid, but the obligation to bring the mincha is not fulfilled and a new one must be brought, and Rava holds that it is valid and the obligation is fulfilled. Rav added another disqualified case to the list – a guilt offering of the nazir and leper. After a discussion about why he would distinguish between that guilt offering and a guilt offering for theft or misuse of consecrated property, the Gemara brings a braita that clearly contradicts Rav as it says explicitly that a guilt offering of a leper offered for the sake of the wrong sacrifice is brought on the altar. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's position. If the omer offering that is brought for the sake of the wrong offering does not fulfill its obligation, how can it be offered on the altar as one can only offer on the altar items that can be eaten by Jews and this is an offering from the chadash (new grain) and the chadash is only permitted with the omer offering. Two answers are brought to resolve this difficulty. The first answer is brought by Rav Ada bar Ahava who suggests that since it will be permitted later that day, when the omer offering is brought correctly, it is not considered a forbidden item. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Ada, two are resolved but the last one is not. Rav Papa offers an alternative answer – that the actual omer offering does not permit the chadash, but the illumination of the eastern horizon on that day permits it (16th of Nisan). This suggestion of Rav Papa is further supported by claiming that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both agreed that the chadash is permitted from that time and not from the offering of the omer, as is derived from a statement of Reish Lakish. A braita teaches that one can derive from a verse "from the cattle" that a treifa cannot be brought on the altar. However, the braita suggests that it could have been derived by a kal v'chomer, but since one can raise a difficulty against that kal v'chomer, it is derived from a verse. However, it is unclear what the difficulty could have been and the Gemara brings several possible suggestions. But difficulties are raised against each of them.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

There are three different opinions about the status of the mincha offering of the omer that is offered for the sake of a different offering. Rav says it is completely disqualified, Reish Lakish holds it is valid, but the obligation to bring the mincha is not fulfilled and a new one must be brought, and Rava holds that it is valid and the obligation is fulfilled. Rav added another disqualified case to the list – a guilt offering of the nazir and leper. After a discussion about why he would distinguish between that guilt offering and a guilt offering for theft or misuse of consecrated property, the Gemara brings a braita that clearly contradicts Rav as it says explicitly that a guilt offering of a leper offered for the sake of the wrong sacrifice is brought on the altar. A difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's position. If the omer offering that is brought for the sake of the wrong offering does not fulfill its obligation, how can it be offered on the altar as one can only offer on the altar items that can be eaten by Jews and this is an offering from the chadash (new grain) and the chadash is only permitted with the omer offering. Two answers are brought to resolve this difficulty. The first answer is brought by Rav Ada bar Ahava who suggests that since it will be permitted later that day, when the omer offering is brought correctly, it is not considered a forbidden item. Three difficulties are raised against Rav Ada, two are resolved but the last one is not. Rav Papa offers an alternative answer – that the actual omer offering does not permit the chadash, but the illumination of the eastern horizon on that day permits it (16th of Nisan). This suggestion of Rav Papa is further supported by claiming that Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish both agreed that the chadash is permitted from that time and not from the offering of the omer, as is derived from a statement of Reish Lakish. A braita teaches that one can derive from a verse "from the cattle" that a treifa cannot be brought on the altar. However, the braita suggests that it could have been derived by a kal v'chomer, but since one can raise a difficulty against that kal v'chomer, it is derived from a verse. However, it is unclear what the difficulty could have been and the Gemara brings several possible suggestions. But difficulties are raised against each of them.

Rav Sheisha brings a fifth explanation of an ambiguous line in the braita brought on Menachot 5b, "If you had raised a difficulty on the logical argument." As in all the previous explanations, also this one is rejected. Rav Ashi suggests that one could knock out the logical argument from the beginning as perhaps one could not even bring a kal v'chomer from blemished animals as they have a stringency. This suggestion of Rav Ashi is modified a few times and ultimately his explanation is that if one were to make a kal v'chomer with both blemished animals and ones born not through natural childbirth, one could reject that kal v'chomer as they both have a stringency that is not in a treifa as they have noticeable issues, whereas a treifa is not necessarily noticeable. The braita concluded that the source for a treifa not being able to be offered on the altar is derived from "from the cattle." However, two other verses also are used to exclude a treifa. Why are all three verses necessary? The Mishna rules that any meal offering that the kemitza is done by a non-kohen, onen, impure person, etc. (i.e. not in the proper manner), is disqualified. Ben Beteira disagrees and explains that if it was done with the left hand, one returns the kometz to the pile and redoes it with the right hand. If a kohen took the kemitza but there was something else in there like a pebble or frankincense, it is invalid as the kemitza must be a precise handful, no more and no less. The Gemara first questions the language of the Mishna – why does it list the mincha offering brought for a sin together separately from the others. The answer is that the Mishna is highlighting that even according to Rabbi Shimon who holds that a sinner's offering should not be glorious, it still needs to be done properly. Even though in Zevachim, the parallel Mishna relating to sacrifices does not single out the sin offering, the Gemara explains why there was no need there to explain it according to Rabbi Shimon, but there was a need here. Rav explains that any disqualification can be fixed by redoing it. At first, they question Rav's ruling in light of the rabbis' position in the Mishna, but then they explain that Rav holds like ben Beteira and is coming to explain that even though ben Beteira only mentioned the disqualification of the left hand in the Mishna, his ruling applies for all disqualifications. The Gemara raises a difficulty on this from tannaitic sources that show that this was clear even before Rav made his statement. To resolve the difficulty, they bring a different explanation – that Rav was pointing out that ben Beteira permits it to be redone even if the kometz was placed in a sanctified vessel, which disagrees with a tannaitic opinion that it can be fixed only if it wasn't yet placed in a sanctified vessel. According to others, Rav is coming to teach the exact opposite and to show that he agrees with the tannaitic opinion that it can only be fixed if it was not yet placed in the vessel.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

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/

What was clear to Raba on one hand and Rava on the other - regarding how to understand Rabbi Shimon's words and whether a noticeably incorrect intent (machshava nikeret) disqualifies or not - was not clear to Rav Hoshaya, who deliberated on how to interpret Rabbi Shimon's position. The Gemara explains why he did not accept the opinions of Raba, Rava, or Rav Ashi as a sufficient explanation for his doubt. The Mishna mentions two exceptions to the rule of a meal offering (mincha) that was perfomed for the wrong purpose (where the offering is valid but the owner has not fulfilled their obligation): the sinner's meal offering (minchat choteh) and the jealousy offering  of a Sotah (minchat kenaot) are completely disqualified if perfomed for the wrong purpose (shelo lishmah). What is the source for this? The Gemara initially presents a derivation for each of them from the sin offering (chatat), but after rejecting these derivations due to a difficulty regarding the guilt offering (asham), it brings a different exposition based on a gezeirah shava (verbal analogy) to both of these meal offerings. Rav adds the Omer meal offering to this list, stating that if it was performed for the wrong purpose, it is disqualified because it is intended to permit the consumption of the "new grain" (chadash), and if brought for the wrong purpose, it fails to permit it and is useless. He says the same regarding the nazirite's guilt offering (asham nazir) and the leper's guilt offering (asham metzora). If so, why are this meal offering and these sacrifices not mentioned in the Mishnayot in Menachot and Zevachim that list those disqualified if they were brought for the wrong purpose? The Gemara answers this question and settles the difficulty. The Gemara further challenges Rav: if the asham nazir and asham metzora are meant to "enable" (le'hachshir) a status change and fail to do so when brought for the wrong purpose, then the guilt offering for misappropriation (asham me'ilot) and the guilt offering for theft (asham gezeilot) - which are meant to "atone" (le'chaper) - likewise fail to atone; why then are they valid if brought for the wrong purpose? Rabbi Yirmiya makes a distinction between offerings that "enable" status (machshirim) and those that "atone" (mechaperim). He brings proof from the laws of sacrifices brought after the death of the owner, specifically citing a Mishna regarding a woman after childbirth (yoledet). Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, challenges this distinction (regarding the laws after death) from a Mishna in Nazir, where an enabling sacrifice is indeed brought after death.  

This week's portion is called Va'Era (I appeared)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 8:23[19]–9:16GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 4:35–4:41What 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

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

What was clear to Raba on one hand and Rava on the other - regarding how to understand Rabbi Shimon's words and whether a noticeably incorrect intent (machshava nikeret) disqualifies or not - was not clear to Rav Hoshaya, who deliberated on how to interpret Rabbi Shimon's position. The Gemara explains why he did not accept the opinions of Raba, Rava, or Rav Ashi as a sufficient explanation for his doubt. The Mishna mentions two exceptions to the rule of a meal offering (mincha) that was perfomed for the wrong purpose (where the offering is valid but the owner has not fulfilled their obligation): the sinner's meal offering (minchat choteh) and the jealousy offering  of a Sotah (minchat kenaot) are completely disqualified if perfomed for the wrong purpose (shelo lishmah). What is the source for this? The Gemara initially presents a derivation for each of them from the sin offering (chatat), but after rejecting these derivations due to a difficulty regarding the guilt offering (asham), it brings a different exposition based on a gezeirah shava (verbal analogy) to both of these meal offerings. Rav adds the Omer meal offering to this list, stating that if it was performed for the wrong purpose, it is disqualified because it is intended to permit the consumption of the "new grain" (chadash), and if brought for the wrong purpose, it fails to permit it and is useless. He says the same regarding the nazirite's guilt offering (asham nazir) and the leper's guilt offering (asham metzora). If so, why are this meal offering and these sacrifices not mentioned in the Mishnayot in Menachot and Zevachim that list those disqualified if they were brought for the wrong purpose? The Gemara answers this question and settles the difficulty. The Gemara further challenges Rav: if the asham nazir and asham metzora are meant to "enable" (le'hachshir) a status change and fail to do so when brought for the wrong purpose, then the guilt offering for misappropriation (asham me'ilot) and the guilt offering for theft (asham gezeilot) - which are meant to "atone" (le'chaper) - likewise fail to atone; why then are they valid if brought for the wrong purpose? Rabbi Yirmiya makes a distinction between offerings that "enable" status (machshirim) and those that "atone" (mechaperim). He brings proof from the laws of sacrifices brought after the death of the owner, specifically citing a Mishna regarding a woman after childbirth (yoledet). Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, challenges this distinction (regarding the laws after death) from a Mishna in Nazir, where an enabling sacrifice is indeed brought after death.  

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

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/

Study Guide There are three ways to resolve the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon in two braitot: in one, he states that a meal-offering (mincha) brought for a different purpose than its original intent is valid and fulfills the owner's obligation, while in the other, he states that it is valid but does not fulfill the owner's obligation. Raba, Rava, and Rav Ashi each offer different resolutions to this contradiction. Raba explains Rabbi Shimon's words according to their simple meaning - that when it is evident from a person's actions that their stated thought was not sincere (or was a lie), we can disregard the thought and validate the offering. The Gemara raises nine challenges to Raba's position from other cases involving bird offerings and animal sacrifices where the actions clearly contradict the stated intent, yet the sacrifice still does not fulfill the owner's obligation. For most of these challenges, the Gemara answers that the cases are not truly comparable, but in some instances, it concedes that Rabbi Shimon would indeed agree that the sacrifice fulfills the owner's obligation in those scenarios as well. Rava and Rav Ashi resolve the difficulty differently. According to both, the principle of "its actions prove its intent" (ma'asav mochiach alav) must be interpreted in a different way. The Gemara raises a challenge against each of their views and subsequently resolves them. According to Rava's final position, it emerges that Rabbi Shimon would even validate a specific case of a sin-offering offered as a different sin-offering, and it would be accepted as fulfilling the obligation.

This week's portion is called Va'Era (I appeared)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 7:8–8:10[6]GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 4:1–12What 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 Va'Era (I appeared)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 8:11–22[7–18]GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 4:12–34What 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

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

Study Guide There are three ways to resolve the contradiction between the statements of Rabbi Shimon in two braitot: in one, he states that a meal-offering (mincha) brought for a different purpose than its original intent is valid and fulfills the owner's obligation, while in the other, he states that it is valid but does not fulfill the owner's obligation. Raba, Rava, and Rav Ashi each offer different resolutions to this contradiction. Raba explains Rabbi Shimon's words according to their simple meaning - that when it is evident from a person's actions that their stated thought was not sincere (or was a lie), we can disregard the thought and validate the offering. The Gemara raises nine challenges to Raba's position from other cases involving bird offerings and animal sacrifices where the actions clearly contradict the stated intent, yet the sacrifice still does not fulfill the owner's obligation. For most of these challenges, the Gemara answers that the cases are not truly comparable, but in some instances, it concedes that Rabbi Shimon would indeed agree that the sacrifice fulfills the owner's obligation in those scenarios as well. Rava and Rav Ashi resolve the difficulty differently. According to both, the principle of "its actions prove its intent" (ma'asav mochiach alav) must be interpreted in a different way. The Gemara raises a challenge against each of their views and subsequently resolves them. According to Rava's final position, it emerges that Rabbi Shimon would even validate a specific case of a sin-offering offered as a different sin-offering, and it would be accepted as fulfilling the obligation.

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/

Study Guide If one takes a dough of a mincha that was designated for a specific type of meal offering and takes the kemitza with the intention that it be offered for a different type of mincha, the sacrifice is not invalidated. It must still be offered according to its original designation. However, it does not fulfill the obligation of the person who brought the mincha. There are exceptions to this rule - cases in which the wrong intent completely disqualifies the offering - specifically in a mincha of a sinner and of the sotah. The Gemara raises a question: Why does the Mishna use the word "ela" ("but") instead of "ve" ("and") in the phrase "but with the wrong intent does not fulfill the owner's obligation"? The answer given is that although the sacrifice does not fulfill the owner's obligation, its original sanctity and designation remain intact. Therefore, the remaining sacrificial rites must be performed in accordance with its original purpose. This explanation aligns with a statement made by Rava, and two reasons are offered to support this ruling - one derived from a biblical verse, and the other based on logical reasoning. It seems, at first glance, that the Mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, who explains that a mincha offered for the sake of a different sacrifice is valid and fulfills the obligation of the owner. The Gemara refers then to a contradiction between two different sources within Rabbi Shimon - in one it says it does fulfill the obligation, in the other it says it does not. Raba, Rava, and Rav Ashi each offer different resolutions to the contradiction. According to Rav Ashi's resolution, one can reconcile our Mishna with Rabbi Shimon in the same manner. But according to Raba and Rava, that is not possible, as their explanations for the second braita cannot be used for our Mishna, as the language of our Mishna would not fit with that explanation. Therefore, according to them, Rabbi Shimon must be offering a position that is counter to the position of our Mishna. After making mention of the contradictory sources of Rabbi Shimon, the Gemara brings the other braita and begins to explain the resolutions. Raba's explanation is brought and Abaye raises a difficulty, which Raba himself resolves. Then a number of other questions are raised against Raba.

This week's portion is called Va'Era (I appeared)TORAH PORTION: Exodus 6:29–7:7GOSPEL PORTION: Mark 3What 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

Study the daily entries of "Hayom Yom," a book of short daily insights which was compiled by the Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem M. Schneerson, of righteous memory, in 1942.

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/

Sponsored by Anonymous:This is the second of 6 shows sponsored in memory of Eliyahu ben Yehuda, niftar 27 Tevet 5776, on his 10th yahrzeit, commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States of America.

In this week's Weekly Energy Boost, Elisheva Balas is joined by Daniel Naor for a powerful conversation on pressure, free will, and love. Drawing on the wisdom of Kabbalah, the Zohar, Torah teachings, and kabbalistic astrology, this episode reframes life's challenges as invitations for growth rather than obstacles to avoid.Together, they explore how control often masks fear, why avoidance keeps us stuck, and how true spiritual clarity comes from trusting the heart over constant calculation. This week's energy calls us to pause, listen, and respond with greater awareness—before small signals turn into heavier lessons.In this episode, you'll discover:Why pressure can be an expression of love and mercyHow time creates space for change and repairThe link between control, guilt, and self-loveHow surrender unlocks clarity and forward movementWeekly Energy Boost is your spiritual weather report for the week—offering practical tools to help you transform pressure into purpose and realign with the flow of life. Join us for the next episode of Weekly Energy Boost with @ElishevaBalas and special guest, @Daniel.Naor72.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 atwww.weeklyenergyboost.com/donate-today.

During the period when the Tabernacle stood in Nov and Givon, it was permitted to offer sacrifices on private bamot. This is derived from Devarim 12:9: "For you have not yet arrived at the menucha and the nachala." Menucha refers to Shiloh, and nachala refers to Jerusalem. The additional word "to" between them serves to separate the two stages, indicating that bamot were permitted in the interim period. Reish Lakish asked Rabbi Yochanan why maaser sheni is not mentioned in the Mishna regarding the period of Nov and Givon. Rabbi Yochanan answered that when there is no Ark, there is no maaser sheni, based on a gezeira shava linking the two. When Reish Lakish challenges this - arguing that according to that gezeira shava, the Pesach offering and other sacrificial foods should also not be eaten - Rabbi Yochanan offers a different explanation: the Mishna follows Rabbi Shimon's view that only obligatory sacrifices with a fixed time were brought, which excludes animal tithes. Since maaser sheni (grain tithes) is comparable to animal tithes, it too would not apply. According to this second explanation, Rabbi Yehuda would hold that maaser sheni was brought during the period of Nov and Givon, a view supported by a statement of Rav Ada and a braita cited by Rav Yosef. Although the verse in Devarim 12:9 was initially explained as referring to Shilo and Jerusalem through the terms menucha and nachala, three additional interpretations are presented, each examined in the context of the verse. The Mishna states that one who consecrates an animal for sacrifice at a time when bamot are permitted, but offers it when bamot are forbidden, is not liable for karet. Rav Kahana limits this exemption to slaughtering outside the Temple; one who actually offers the sacrifice outside is liable for karet. After Rav Kahana explains his derivation, Raba rejects his position on two grounds. The Mishna lists several differences between the sacrificial procedures on the large bama and on smaller bamot. The Gemara provides the Torah sources for each distinction. Two versions are recorded regarding a limitation taught by Rami bar Hama, and a braita is cited to either challenge or support his view. Finally, an alternative position is presented in the name of Rabbi Elazar.

  Rabbi Zeira raises the question of an offering designated for a private altar: if it was slaughtered on the private altar, then brought into the Tabernacle, and afterward taken back out, must it now be returned to the Tabernacle and treated like a public‑altar sacrifice with all its associated requirements? Initially, the Gemara suggests that this issue might hinge on the dispute between Rava and Rav Yosef regarding high level sanctity offerings that were slaughtered in the South instead of the required Northern area and were then mistakenly placed on the altar. Ultimately, however, the Gemara distinguishes between the two cases and rejects the comparison. Another discussion concerns a sacrifice slaughtered at night on a private altar. Rav and Shmuel disagree about whether such an offering is valid. Rav and Rabbi Yoḥanan also dispute whether burnt offerings brought on private altars require hefshet and nituach - flaying and cutting into pieces - just as they do on the public altar. Although private altars operate with fewer restrictions, several laws apply equally to both private and public offerings. A braita entertains the possibility that time‑based limitations might not apply to private‑altar sacrifices, just as spatial limitations do not. However, a verse is cited to demonstrate that time restrictions indeed remain binding even for offerings brought on private altars.

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/