Podcasts about Yoma

We introduce the section of the Ketoret with the proclamation, "Ata Hu Hashem Elokenu…," stating that "You are Hashem our G-d" to whom our ancestors would offer incense in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Our custom is to recite this introduction each time we recite the Ketoret – toward the beginning of Shaharit, before Alenu at the end of Shaharit, and at the beginning of Minha. The question arises as to why this introduction is necessary. Before we recite the verses discussing the daily Tamid sacrifice, we do not make a similar pronouncement, that Hashem commanded us to offer the Tamid sacrifice that our ancestors would bring in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Why do we introduce the Ketoret with this declaration? One explanation is given by the Noda Bi'Yehuda (Rav Yehezkel Landau of Prague, 1713-1793). He notes that before the recitation of the Ketoret toward the end of Shaharit, we recite "En K'Elokenu," a hymn poetically declaring that there is no being comparable to Hashem. This hymn concludes, "Ata Hu Elokenu, Ata Hu Abinu, Ata Hu Malkenu, Ata Hu Moshi'enu" – "You are our G-d, You are our Father, You are our King, Your are our Savior." As a natural continuation of this phrase, we add, "Ata Hu Hashem Elokenu She'hiktiru…" The Noda Bi'Yehuda explains that we introduce the Ketoret with "En K'Elokenu" because of the Gemara's teaching (Yoma 26a) that the Kohen who offered the Ketoret was rewarded with wealth. We, too, aspire to earn wealth through the recitation of the Ketoret, and so we begin by proclaiming "En K'Elokenu" – acknowledging that everything we have, all our material blessings, have been given to us by Hashem, that there is no one and nothing in the world like Hashem, as He and only He provides us with everything we have. (Another explanation for the recitation of "En K'Elokenu" is based on the comment of the Talmud Yerushalmi (Yoma 1:5) that nobody was allowed in the Bet Ha'mikdash at the time when the Kohen offered the incense. Even the angels were barred from the Temple during those moments, so the Kohen could be alone with the Almighty. We therefore introduce the recitation of the Ketoret by emphasizing that "En K'Elokenu" – there is no one like Hashem, and thus only He was present at the time the Ketoret was offered.) The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) offers a different explanation for the "Ata Hu Hashem Elokenu" introduction to the Ketoret. He contrasts this introduction with the prayer that introduces the recitation of the section of the Tamid (the verses about the daily animal sacrifice in the Temple) – a prayer asking Hashem to consider our recitation of the Tamid as though we actually brought the sacrifice on the altar in the Bet Ha'mikdash. Before reciting the Ketoret, we do not say such a prayer, and we instead emphasize that the Ketoret was offered only by our ancestors during the times of the Temple. The reason, the Ben Ish Hai writes, is that it was a grievous infraction if the Ketoret was missing even one of its eleven ingredients when it was offered on the altar. If our recitation of the Ketoret would be regarded as the actual offering, then if a person read this section quickly and mistakenly omitted one of the ingredients, he would be guilty of offering an invalid Ketoret. Hence, instead of asking Hashem to accept our reading as though we actually offered the Ketoret, we do just the opposite – emphasizing that this is what our ancestors did and what we are unable to do. This way, if we miss a word, our recitation would still have value as reading about the Ketoret offering, but we would not be guilty of bringing a deficient offering.

When grace is received, it often feels like a lifting, a release from heaviness long carried. Something shifts within, as though the gravity of the soul has changed.‍ The rabbinic tradition gives language to this transformation. “Great is repentance, for it can transform even deliberate sins into merits” (Yoma 86b). What once weighed us down can, through grace, become the very ground of renewal.‍

Source sheet: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1wv-W6BEn2iahSenDoy9F9b4CBDrffE8RQkeyCM621O0/edit?tab=t.0#heading=h.oq4x0c2v3hwp This is a recording of Rabbi Sharon Brous's For the Love of Learning class. Every Tuesday morning, a new story from the Talmud. Taught by your rabbis in a monthly rotation, we'll dig into the strange and compelling world of the Talmud, exploring the ways ancient dilemmas speak to modern questions. Join us in-person at the Event Space (coffee and nosh provided) or over Zoom (B.Y.O. nosh) for as many sessions as possible… your Tuesday will thank you.

How can creators turn everyday problems into income streams, build multiple businesses, and stay confident through uncertainty? For that and more, follow us here and subscribe to our YouTube channel!In this episode of Built Online, we sat down with Yoma James Kukor, entrepreneur, creator, and CEO of event-tech platform Vendoir, to talk about how he went from redundancy into running three profitable businesses, growing a YouTube channel past 160k subscribers, and using runway, resilience, and an abundance mindset to create new opportunities instead of waiting for safe jobs to appear. ------------YOMA JAMES KUKOR:- YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@yomajameskukor- Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/yomajameskukor/- TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@yomajameskukor- LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/yomajames/- X: https://x.com/yomajameskukor- Company Website (Vendoir): https://www.vendoir.com- Personal Website: https://yomajames.com------------

Why did Moshe Rabbeinu came from a marriage that would later be forbidden by the Torah? Chizkuni explains based on Yoma 22b that a leader of the Tzibbur needs to have a basket of Sheratzim hanging from them to keep them humble. Lessons in humility and why Hashem gives us our life situations in the way that He does.Have a Good Shabbos

Blu Boltar, lord of the Yoma clan has invaded Chinaland and captured the Emperor. Sending out a TV broadcast across the realm, Blu Boltar declares himself the ruler. Jack and Ryu are the ninja masters of Chinaland, training under their mentor at Mt. Epin. Having heard the news of the Emperor's capture they set out to defeat Blu Boltar and his Yoma Clan. Support NEStalgia directly by becoming a member of our Patreon at https://www.patreon.com/Nestalgia  Members at the $5 and above level get access to our brand new show NEStalgia Bytes. A look at the famicom games you can play without any Japanese knowledge! For More NEStalgia, visit www.NEStalgiacast.com

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.

  According to the Mishna, in a burnt offering, items that are connected to the meat but not the meat itself—such as bones, hooves, horns, and sinews—are left on the altar if they remain attached to the meat. However, if they are detached, they must be removed from the altar. This ruling is derived from two different verses in the Torah: in Vayikra 1:9 it says that everything is burned on the altar, while in Devarim 12:27 it specifies that in burnt offerings, meat and blood are brought on the altar. This opinion in the Mishna is attributed to Rebbi, while another tannaitic view interprets "everything" more broadly to include these parts, with the limiting verse excluding bones, sinews, etc. only once they have already been consumed by the fire and separated from it. Rabbi Zeira qualifies Rebbi's opinion, explaining that if these parts became separated from the meat but moved closer to the pyre, they are to remain on the altar. The Gemara rejects this explanation, and Rabba offers a different interpretation of Rabbi Zeira's qualification. He explains that the qualification was not on Rebbi's words themselves but on an inference drawn from them—that if they separate, they must be removed from the altar, though they still retain sanctity and cannot be used for personal benefit. Rabba then distinguishes between items that separated before the blood was placed on the altar and those that separated afterward. If they were still attached at the time of the blood sprinkling and later separated, they are considered sanctified items that became disqualified, which are forbidden for benefit. But if they were already detached at the time of sprinkling, they were never destined for the altar and are therefore permitted for the kohanim's use, as derived from a gezeira shava from the guilt offering. Rabbi Elazar takes the opposite approach. If they were still attached when the blood was sprinkled, the sprinkling permits them, so there is no liability for misuse of consecrated property, though they remain prohibited by rabbinic law. However, if they were already detached, the sprinkling has no effect on them, and they remain in their original consecrated state, making one liable for misuse of consecrated property. The Mishna further explains that if any of the disqualified offerings that are meant to remain on the altar (as mentioned in Zevachim 84a) fall off the altar, or if an ember of wood falls off, they do not need to be returned. The Mishna also rules that if parts of the sacrifice that are to be burned on the altar fall off, they must be put back on if this occurs before midnight. After midnight, however, they do not need to be returned. The Gemara limits this ruling to items that have hardened but not yet reduced to ash. Items not yet consumed to that state must be returned regardless of the time, while items already reduced to ash do not need to be returned. Rav brings a source for the significance of midnight in this law from a drasha on the verses in Vayikra 6:2–3. Rav Kahana raises a difficulty on this braita from a Mishna in Yoma 20a, and Rabbi Yochanan brings a different drasha to explain the Mishna.