Podcast appearances and mentions of carol robinson

durée : 00:59:58 - A l'Improviste : avec Violaine Gestalder et Loris Binot, puis le trio Carol Robinson, Charlotte Testu et Serge Teyssot-Gay - par : Anne Montaron - Dans A l'Improviste ce soir un condensé de la session d'improvisation publique du 12 mai au Carreau du Temple à Pais : invitation au voyage et au rêve avec Violaine Gestalder, Loris Binot, Carol Robinson, Charlotte Testu et Serge Teyssot-Gay - réalisé par : Céline Parfenoff

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in loving memory of our fellow Daf learner Carol Robinson, z"l. "In all the spaces she touched she was an אישה כגפן פוריה, fruitful in all her endeavors." Micah was saved from losing his share in the World-to-Come because he gave food to travelers. Rabbi Yochanan, partially based on a statement of Rabbi Yosi bar Kisma explained that hospitality is so important that one can see its effect in several ways throughout Tanach history. Why were Achaz, Amon and Yehoyakim not included in the list of those not receiving a share in the World-to-Come? Even though hospitality is an important value, sometimes it is not. This is highlighted by Chizkiyahu who invited Babylonian messengers and fed them a lot of food, treating them with a lot of respect, which partially caused the destruction of the Temple. Several verses from Eicha are expounded to explain many different issues relating to the destruction. Rav Ashi explained that anshei kneset hagedola were the ones who created the list of those who did not receive a place in the World-to-Come. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that they wanted to include King Solomon in the list, but God disagreed with them. Others, dorshei reshumot, held that all of them had a place in the World-to-Come (other than Bilam), deriving it from a verse in Tehillim 60:9-10.

Today's daf is sponsored by the Hadran Zoom Family in loving memory of our fellow Daf learner Carol Robinson, z"l. "In all the spaces she touched she was an אישה כגפן פוריה, fruitful in all her endeavors." Micah was saved from losing his share in the World-to-Come because he gave food to travelers. Rabbi Yochanan, partially based on a statement of Rabbi Yosi bar Kisma explained that hospitality is so important that one can see its effect in several ways throughout Tanach history. Why were Achaz, Amon and Yehoyakim not included in the list of those not receiving a share in the World-to-Come? Even though hospitality is an important value, sometimes it is not. This is highlighted by Chizkiyahu who invited Babylonian messengers and fed them a lot of food, treating them with a lot of respect, which partially caused the destruction of the Temple. Several verses from Eicha are expounded to explain many different issues relating to the destruction. Rav Ashi explained that anshei kneset hagedola were the ones who created the list of those who did not receive a place in the World-to-Come. Rav Yehuda said in the name of Rav that they wanted to include King Solomon in the list, but God disagreed with them. Others, dorshei reshumot, held that all of them had a place in the World-to-Come (other than Bilam), deriving it from a verse in Tehillim 60:9-10.

durée : 00:30:07 - "As far as will fill up the time " de Zad Moultaka - par : Anne Montaron - Un compositeur, Zad Moultaka. Une interprète, Carol Robinson. Et un instrument rare ! Notre rediffusion Alla Breve de la semaine a les couleurs de la Birbyne, la clarinette de Lituanie. - réalisé par : Olivier Guérin

durée : 00:30:07 - "As far as will fill up the time " de Zad Moultaka - par : Anne Montaron - Un compositeur, Zad Moultaka. Une interprète, Carol Robinson. Et un instrument rare ! Notre rediffusion Alla Breve de la semaine a les couleurs de la Birbyne, la clarinette de Lituanie. - réalisé par : Olivier Guérin

Study Guide Sanhedrin 9 Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Gewirtz in loving memory of her father, Mel Rishe. "He loved learning, loved and served the state of Israel as a lawyer, and would be thrilled to see the learning that has flourished with Hadran."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Robinson's father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 25th yahrtzeit. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything. When one of his girls was on a date, he never went to bed until she was safely home."  Under what circumstances do Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether a defamation case should be heard by a court of three or twenty-three judges, and what underlies their disagreement? Four additional suggestions are presented (bringing the total to eight) to address this question. Rav Yosef presents a law concerning defamation. Generally, when someone faces both capital punishment and a monetary obligation for the same act, they are exempt from the monetary payment. However, in a defamation case, there can be a situation where both penalties apply. If a husband brings witnesses against his wife, and then the father brings witnesses who prove the first group to be eidim zomemim (false witnesses), and subsequently the husband brings witnesses who prove the father's witnesses to be zomemim, the father's witnesses receive both capital punishment (for attempting to have the first group of witnesses executed) and must pay the husband (the penalty he would have owed his wife had their testimony been accepted). These dual punishments are possible because the death penalty stems from their attempt to execute the husband's witnesses, while the monetary payment relates to their attempted financial penalty to the husband himself. Rav Yosef offers a second ruling: When someone testifies against another person but incriminates themselves in the process, their entire testimony is inadmissible because they are considered a sinner, and a sinner's testimony is not accepted in court. Rava, however, disagrees. He maintains that we can divide the testimony, accepting what the witness says about others while disregarding their self-incriminating statements, since one's testimony against oneself is not legally binding for self-incrimination.

Study Guide Sanhedrin 9 Today's daf is sponsored by Adina Gewirtz in loving memory of her father, Mel Rishe. "He loved learning, loved and served the state of Israel as a lawyer, and would be thrilled to see the learning that has flourished with Hadran."  Today’s daf is sponsored by Art Gould in loving memory of Carol Robinson's father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe, z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 25th yahrtzeit. Lou was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. He could fix anything. When one of his girls was on a date, he never went to bed until she was safely home."  Under what circumstances do Rabbi Meir and the rabbis debate whether a defamation case should be heard by a court of three or twenty-three judges, and what underlies their disagreement? Four additional suggestions are presented (bringing the total to eight) to address this question. Rav Yosef presents a law concerning defamation. Generally, when someone faces both capital punishment and a monetary obligation for the same act, they are exempt from the monetary payment. However, in a defamation case, there can be a situation where both penalties apply. If a husband brings witnesses against his wife, and then the father brings witnesses who prove the first group to be eidim zomemim (false witnesses), and subsequently the husband brings witnesses who prove the father's witnesses to be zomemim, the father's witnesses receive both capital punishment (for attempting to have the first group of witnesses executed) and must pay the husband (the penalty he would have owed his wife had their testimony been accepted). These dual punishments are possible because the death penalty stems from their attempt to execute the husband's witnesses, while the monetary payment relates to their attempted financial penalty to the husband himself. Rav Yosef offers a second ruling: When someone testifies against another person but incriminates themselves in the process, their entire testimony is inadmissible because they are considered a sinner, and a sinner's testimony is not accepted in court. Rava, however, disagrees. He maintains that we can divide the testimony, accepting what the witness says about others while disregarding their self-incriminating statements, since one's testimony against oneself is not legally binding for self-incrimination.

There's a story out of Fayette County where a traffic fatality that killed a father and daughter shed light on a 1-year-old in the family who apparently has been missing but not reported as such. John Hammontree's going to talk to public-safety reporter Carol Robinson on what we know and don't know. Read more on that here. On today's report we also have the sentencing in a professor's fentanyl-related death, a bill targeting porch pirates, and how much of the federal defense bill's spending is coming to Alabama. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this week's episode of Weird True Crime, we dive into the tragic and infuriating case of Mahogany Jaquise Jackson—a young mother working hard to turn her life around when her dreams were violently taken from her. At just 20 years old, Mahogany was betrayed by people she thought she could trust, and her life ended in the most unimaginable way.Join us as we uncover Mahogany's story, from her early days of compassion and resilience to the heartbreaking events that led to her untimely death. We discuss the investigation, the key evidence—including shocking video footage—and the fight for justice her family continues to pursue.This episode examines themes of loyalty, betrayal, and systemic challenges in seeking justice, all while honoring Mahogany's legacy as a mother, daughter, and friend.If you or someone you know is affected by domestic violence or unsafe relationships, resources are available. Visit National Domestic Violence Hotline or call 1-800-799-SAFE (7233).--Resources and Links:Learn more about Birmingham's new crime-fighting technology: AL.com Article on Surveillance Cameras.Support victims of domestic violence: National Domestic Violence Hotline.Stay updated on Mahogany Jackson's case through local reporting: Carol Robinson's AL.com Articles.Connect with Us:Follow us on TikTok & Instagram: @WeirdTrueCrime.Got a case you want us to cover? Email us at weirdtruecrime@gmail.com.Support the show and get ad-free episodes on Patreon.--ABC News, “Mahogany Jackson texted…” Zaru, Deena March 13, 2024Birmingham Police, “Seven Arrests Made…” Fitzgerald, Truman, Feb. 28, 2024WBRC Fox 6 News, “Mother of Mahogany Jackson…” Chatman, Bria Oct. 1, 2024MSN, “8 Suspects Charged in Death…” Pollock, TaylorWVTM 13, “All 8 suspects charged…” Keenum, Lynn, Oct 2. 2024Birmingham Police, “Eighth Arrest Made…”AL.com, “Mahogany Jackson knew…” Robinson, CarolAL.com, “Family Fears…” Robinson, CarolAL.com, “Mahogany Jackson…found shot to death” Robinson, CarolAL.com, “6 detained in kidnapping…” Robinson, Carol, Feb. 27, 2024AL.com, 7 face kidnapping….” Robinson, Carol, Mar. 01, 2024AL.com, “8th suspect charged in heinous…” Robinson, Carol, Mar. 04, 2024AL.com, “Mahogany Jackson's captors…” Robinson, Carol, Mar. 04 2024AL.com, “Is Mahogany Jackson's gruesome…” Johnson, Roy. S, Mar. 15, 2024AL.com, “Birmingham police want access…” Robinson, CarolAL.com, “Cases against 2 suspects…” Robinson, CarolAL.com, “5 suspects indicted for capital murder…” Robinson, CarolCBS 42, “Mother of Mahogany Jackson…” People.com, “Ala. Mom Who Was Tortured…” Palmer, Emily “Mar. 1, 2024Mahogany Jackson Obituary,Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/weird-true-crime--5679751/support.

El silencio es parte indispensable de la música, aunque se trate terminológicamente hablando de “la ausencia total de sonido”, y está presente en mayor o menor medida en cualquier composición musical. El silencio también es el punto de confluencia de músicos como los del colectivo Wandelweiser._____Has escuchadoDedekind Duos (2003) / Antoine Beuger. Carl Ludwig Hübsch, tuba; Pierre-Yves Martel, viola da gamba. Inexhaustible Editions (2020)Empty Rooms (2016) / Raf Mur Ros. DRAMA! Grabación sonora realizada en directo en la sala de conciertos de la Fundación Juan March, el 7 de diciembre de 2016Fields Have Ears (2019) / Michael Pisaro. Cristián Alvear, guitarra (e-guitar). Autoedición (2020)I Listened to the Wind Again (2017) / Jürg Frey. Hélène Fauchère, soprano; Carol Robinson, clarinete; Nathalie Chabot, violín; Agnès Vesterman, violonchelo; Garth Knox, viola; Sylvain Lemêtre, percusión. Louth Contemporary Music Society (2021)Abgemalt (2009) / Eva-Maria Houben. R. Andrew Lee, piano. Irritable Hedgehog (2013)_____Selección bibliográficaBURNARD, Pamela, et al., “Identifying New Parameters Informing the Relationship Between Silence and Sound in diverse musical performance practices and perception”. IJMSTA, vol. 3, n.º 1 (2021), pp. 7-17*DEAVILLE, James, “The Well-Mannered Auditor: Zones of Attention and the Imposition of Silence in the Salon of the Nineteenth Century”. En: The Oxford Handbook of Music Listening in the 19th and 20th Centuries. Editado por Christian Thorau y Hansjakob Ziemer. Oxford University Press, 2019*DENZLER, Bertrand y Jean-Luc Guionnet (eds.), The Practice of Musical Improvisation: Dialogues with Contemporary Musical Improvisers. Bloomsbury Academic, 2020*ENGELHARDT, Jeffers, “Vibrating, and Silent: Listening to the Material Acoustics of Tintinnabulation”. En: Arvo Pärt: Sounding the Sacred. Editado por Peter C. Bouteneff, Jeffers Engelhardt y Robert Saler. Fordham University Press, 2020EPSTEIN, Nomi, “Musical Fragility: A Phenomenological Examination”. Tempo, vol. 71, n.º 281 (2017), pp. 39-52*GOTTSCHALK, Jennie, Experimental Music Since 1970. Bloomsbury Academic, 2016*HAINGE, Greg, “Sound is Silence”. En: The Oxford Handbook of Sound Art. Editado por Jane Grant, John Matthias y David Prior. Oxford University Press, 2021*JUDKINS, Jennifer, “Silence, Sound, Noise and Music”. En: The Routledge Companion to Philosophy and Music. Editado por Theodore Gracyk, Andrew Kania, et al. Routledge, 2011*KAHN, Douglas, “John Cage: Silence and Silencing”. The Musical Quarterly, vol. 81, n.º 4 (1997), pp. 556-598*KELLY, Caleb, Sound. Whitechapel Gallery; MIT Press, 2011*MARGULIS, Elizabeth Hellmuth, “Moved by Nothing: Listening to Musical Silence”. Journal of Music Theory, vol. 51, n.º 2 (2007), pp. 245-276*MCKINNON, Dugal, “Dead Silence: Ecological Silencing and Environmentally Engaged Sound Art”. Leonardo Music Journal, vol. 23 (2013), pp. 71-74*METZER, David, “Modern Silence”. The Journal of Musicology, vol. 23, n.º 3 (2006), pp. 331-374*OCHOA, Ana María, “Silence”. En: Keywords in Sound. Editado por David Novak y Matt Sakakeeny. Duke University Press, 2015*ROSS, Alex, “The Composers of Quiet: The Wandelweiser Collective Makes Music between Sound and Silence”. The New Yorker, 29 de agosto 2016, consultado el 20 de junio de 2023: [Web]TOOP, David, Inflamed Invisible: Collected Writings on Art and Sound, 1976-2018. Goldsmiths Press, 2019*VOEGELIN, Salomé, Listening to Noise and Silence: Towards a Philosophy of Sound Art. Continuum, 2010* *Documento disponible para su consulta en la Sala de Nuevas Músicas de la Biblioteca y Centro de Apoyo a la Investigación de la Fundación Juan March

British scientist Dame Carol Robinson, Professor of Chemistry at the University of Oxford and a trailblazer in the field of mass spectrometry, will receive the Lifetime Achievement Award during this year's European Inventor Award 2024 ceremony. She will be first ever British winner. She is receiving the award not just for her outstanding work but also for championing women in STEM. She joins Nuala McGovern to explain why she's passionate about women in science. Woman's Hour has already spoken to five of the seven main political parties in the run up to the general election. Today, Nuala speaks to Maria Caulfield, Minister of State for Mental Health and Women's Health Strategy, representing the leader of the Conservative party, Rishi Sunak. Woman's Hour invited Labour's Sir Keir Starmer on to the programme as part of our series of party leader interviews ahead of the general election. Labour did not put forward a representative for this interview, so we hear from Ione Wells, BBC political correspondent, about Labour's manifesto pledges regarding women.By the time she was 19, Michelle De Swarte had gone from a council estate in London to the catwalks of Manhattan. Her twenties were a swirl of parties and high end glamour but by her thirties she was broke and in need - as she once put it - of a “new personality”. Desperate to find a way out of fashion, she reinvented herself as a stand-up comedian. Michelle De Swarte joins Nuala to talk about putting some of her own experiences into a new BBC comedy, Spent. Presenter: Nuala McGovern Producer: Olivia Skinner

Does crime rise during the summer? How about on the full moon? Today, public-safety reporter Carol Robinson joins us to talk about some personnel changes at a couple of major police departments as well as some crime trends we're seeing this year and over the past few years. We also have stories on people getting a little too prolific with their taking of coastal fish, a getaway effort that ultimately failed, and a Saharan dust cloud. (Those are a hurricane watcher's friend, by the way). Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Are you ready to take control of your destiny and write your own life story? In this inspiring episode, I talk with self-love coach Carol Robinson to discuss how to become the author of your own life. Carol shares lessons from her transformational journey of self-discovery, teaching the importance of daily journaling, visualising your ideal life, and taking small intentional actions. She emphasises filling your cup through nurturing relationships and mindfulness practices rather than living for others' approval. Carol offers insights on overcoming self-doubt and living aligned with your true nature through patience and compassion. Listen to gain motivation to develop self-awareness, reconnect with your authentic self, and start authoring the fulfilling life you were meant to live.   CHOOSING CHANGE INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/explore/tags/choosingchangepodcast CHOOSING CHANGE SHOW NOTES: https://www.lizziemoult.com/blog/39-carol-robinson  

In the latest #bigheartedpodcast episode, Carol Robinson steps up to the mic with a message that resonates with every family day care educator's heart. With years of experience from managing a beauty salon to mentoring in self-love, Carol understands the intricacies of caring for others while keeping one's own well-being in check. The conversation unfolds as Carol lays out her professional pivot and its profound impact on her approach to buisness. She doesn't just tell us why self-care matters; she shows us, with real-life examples, how prioritising our well-being amplifies our ability to care for the children we're responsible for. Her straightforward talk on setting boundaries paints a clear picture: well-defined limits are a scaffold for a balanced life, allowing us to give our best without burnout. Carol's narrative weaves through the essential practices of mindfulness, reflection, and taking charge of our choices. She sheds light on the power of community support, especially through online connections, and underscores the tangible benefits of understanding self-love, not just as a concept but as a daily practice. Listeners are equipped with Carol's top ten tips, five focused on cultivating self-love and another five on establishing boundaries. From the practical steps of consistent self-care to the necessity of clear communication and the anticipation of resistance, Carol's advice is a toolkit for empowerment in early childhood education. As the episode closes, Carol leaves us with a thought-provoking take on empowerment through education. It's a call to action for all educators to embrace their role with confidence, caring for themselves as diligently as they do for their young learners. Tune in to learn about these insights and transform the way you approach your role as an educator. With Carol's guidance, discover how fostering your self-love can be the most generous gift to those you educate.

Study Guide Bava Kamma 36 This week's learning is sponsored by Adina and Danny Gewirtz in honor of the newest Meir in their family, Meir Amichai, and in loving memory of the original Meir, Adina's father, Melvin Rishe, on his 22nd yahrtzeit. "Dad was a man of many talents, a great talmid chacham, community leader, and a staunch defender of Israel in both his personal and professional life, but for us, he is most remembered for the love he showered on his family and friends. The many children named after him attest to how much he is loved and missed. He would be so proud to have this newest member of the family named after him and also with the hope that the name Meir Amichai expresses. Am Yisrael Chai!"  Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in Olam haZeh and Carol Robinson in Olam haBa in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 24th yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. Lou was the consummate dad; he never went to bed until his daughters came safely home from dates and outings. For sure he is with Carol right now. We loved him and miss him very much."  When there is a doubt about which ox injured another, but both the oxen who potentially caused the injury are owned by the same owner, the Mishna rules that they are both liable. Is this a case of a short muad or a short tam? Why is the language "both are liable" used when it seems to mean the owner is responsible? The fourth chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a shor tam who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row. Who gets paid what? What is the reasoning behind their opinions and how do they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damage or is more like a creditor who is owed money? Can we derive from our Mishna whether or not when a Mishna refers to a sela, they mean the sela tzuri, higher valued currency (4 zuzim) or the sela medina, lower valued currency, (half a zuz) one-eighth the value of the tzuri?

Study Guide Bava Kamma 36 This week's learning is sponsored by Adina and Danny Gewirtz in honor of the newest Meir in their family, Meir Amichai, and in loving memory of the original Meir, Adina's father, Melvin Rishe, on his 22nd yahrtzeit. "Dad was a man of many talents, a great talmid chacham, community leader, and a staunch defender of Israel in both his personal and professional life, but for us, he is most remembered for the love he showered on his family and friends. The many children named after him attest to how much he is loved and missed. He would be so proud to have this newest member of the family named after him and also with the hope that the name Meir Amichai expresses. Am Yisrael Chai!"  Today’s daf is sponsored by Arthur Gould in Olam haZeh and Carol Robinson in Olam haBa in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today, the first day of Hanukkah, we mark his 24th yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. Lou was the consummate dad; he never went to bed until his daughters came safely home from dates and outings. For sure he is with Carol right now. We loved him and miss him very much."  When there is a doubt about which ox injured another, but both the oxen who potentially caused the injury are owned by the same owner, the Mishna rules that they are both liable. Is this a case of a short muad or a short tam? Why is the language "both are liable" used when it seems to mean the owner is responsible? The fourth chapter begins with a debate between Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Shimon about a shor tam who attacks 4 or 5 times in a row. Who gets paid what? What is the reasoning behind their opinions and how do they fit in with the broader approaches of Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael regarding whether the owner of the damaged one has rights to the animal who caused the damage or is more like a creditor who is owed money? Can we derive from our Mishna whether or not when a Mishna refers to a sela, they mean the sela tzuri, higher valued currency (4 zuzim) or the sela medina, lower valued currency, (half a zuz) one-eighth the value of the tzuri?

Today's daf is sponsored by Lenny Levin in loving memory of Carol Robinson. "Carol was a vivacious, caring presence in our lives, whether near or far. Her aura lingers despite her passing. Her example will continue to inspire us to face our continuing life challenges with hope and courage."  There are two more statements about the dangers of flattery and then a statement about four types of people who are not able to greet the divine presence and among them, those who flatter. The new chapter deals with the speech that the designated kohen gives to the people before going out to war, which needs to be in Hebrew only. There are two parts to the speech - one is to list who is exempt from war and the other is to encourage those who are going not to be fearful because God is with them. The Mishna brings examples comparing gentile nations that relied on humans, such as Goliath, to Israel who relies on God. The kohen who makes this speech is appointed, as is derived from the verses. The kohen's speech begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," literally, hear me Israel. But it is understood to be referring to the salvation of the Jews being dependent on saying shema twice a day. A braita establishes that the kohen's speech split into two - part was said on the border of Israel and part just before beginning the war. The Gemara brings several drashot on the David and Goliath narrative. How did Goliath bring his own downfall? How was he trying to wear down the Jews? Why was he called "ish habeinayim"? The sages connect Orpah, Naomi's daughter-in-law, and Harafa, Goliath's mother, and claim they are the same person. How are the names extrapolated? The Amonites relied on Shovach who was also known as Shovach. Which was the real name and which was meant for extrapolating? Some other verses are brought in which there was a debate about how to extrapolate the verse, such as, if one is worried one should "yashchena" - does that means "yaschenu" distract oneself by thinking of other things or "yaschenu" talk it out.

Today's daf is sponsored by Lenny Levin in loving memory of Carol Robinson. "Carol was a vivacious, caring presence in our lives, whether near or far. Her aura lingers despite her passing. Her example will continue to inspire us to face our continuing life challenges with hope and courage."  There are two more statements about the dangers of flattery and then a statement about four types of people who are not able to greet the divine presence and among them, those who flatter. The new chapter deals with the speech that the designated kohen gives to the people before going out to war, which needs to be in Hebrew only. There are two parts to the speech - one is to list who is exempt from war and the other is to encourage those who are going not to be fearful because God is with them. The Mishna brings examples comparing gentile nations that relied on humans, such as Goliath, to Israel who relies on God. The kohen who makes this speech is appointed, as is derived from the verses. The kohen's speech begins with the words "Shema Yisrael," literally, hear me Israel. But it is understood to be referring to the salvation of the Jews being dependent on saying shema twice a day. A braita establishes that the kohen's speech split into two - part was said on the border of Israel and part just before beginning the war. The Gemara brings several drashot on the David and Goliath narrative. How did Goliath bring his own downfall? How was he trying to wear down the Jews? Why was he called "ish habeinayim"? The sages connect Orpah, Naomi's daughter-in-law, and Harafa, Goliath's mother, and claim they are the same person. How are the names extrapolated? The Amonites relied on Shovach who was also known as Shovach. Which was the real name and which was meant for extrapolating? Some other verses are brought in which there was a debate about how to extrapolate the verse, such as, if one is worried one should "yashchena" - does that means "yaschenu" distract oneself by thinking of other things or "yaschenu" talk it out.

This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May his memory be blessed. This week's learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for their daughter (and my niece) Naama bat Yael Esther who is having surgery today. May Hashem grant her a full and speedy recovery. In the spirit of לך כנוס את כל היהודים, "go and gather all the Jews" our global Hadran Zoom Family dedicates today's learning to Carol Robinson and Art Gould. Carol, your beautiful smile, kind heart and gentle determination inspire us in our daily learning. We send you love, strength and courage. Art, we send you continued strength, wisdom, and clarity, as we admire the loving way you care for Carol. Our hearts and tefillot are with you both. A nazir who did not shave off all their hair and left two hairs did nothing. From this, we learn that this is a unique law for a nazir, but in other cases in the Torah, the majority is sufficient. Abaye and Raba ask questions about the issue of the two hairs, by raising  "What if..." scenarios? Is a nazir allowed to wash, straighten out and brush their hair, and if so, how? How does this fit with Rabbi Shimon's opinion that one is not liable for something if that was not one's intent? If the nazir was warned every time before he went to do one of the prohibitions of a nazir, he can receive lashes several times - for each and every forbidden action. Is it possible to be liable for two sets of lashes if became impure to a dead body twice - after all, he has already become impure and has not defiled anything any more than he had from the first instance! There is a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef who both disagree about what Rav Huna held. Abaye raised a difficulty against Rav Yosef from a braita to show that it is impossible that one would get two sets of lashes as one is already defiled. Rav Yosef responds by saying that the braita he quoted contradicts our Mishna where one does get two sets of lashes for two instances of coming in contact with the dead. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by establishing each case in a different way of impurity - the braita is where one is still attached to the first dead body and the Mishna is where one is not. The Gemara questions his answer but resolves it as well.  

This month’s learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen in memory of Dr. Robert Van Amerongen. A doctor who has healed thousands of people with his medical expertise, providing endless care and love at all hours of the day and night. May his memory be blessed. This week's learning is sponsored by Jon and Yael Cohen for a refuah shleima for their daughter (and my niece) Naama bat Yael Esther who is having surgery today. May Hashem grant her a full and speedy recovery. In the spirit of לך כנוס את כל היהודים, "go and gather all the Jews" our global Hadran Zoom Family dedicates today's learning to Carol Robinson and Art Gould. Carol, your beautiful smile, kind heart and gentle determination inspire us in our daily learning. We send you love, strength and courage. Art, we send you continued strength, wisdom, and clarity, as we admire the loving way you care for Carol. Our hearts and tefillot are with you both. A nazir who did not shave off all their hair and left two hairs did nothing. From this, we learn that this is a unique law for a nazir, but in other cases in the Torah, the majority is sufficient. Abaye and Raba ask questions about the issue of the two hairs, by raising  "What if..." scenarios? Is a nazir allowed to wash, straighten out and brush their hair, and if so, how? How does this fit with Rabbi Shimon's opinion that one is not liable for something if that was not one's intent? If the nazir was warned every time before he went to do one of the prohibitions of a nazir, he can receive lashes several times - for each and every forbidden action. Is it possible to be liable for two sets of lashes if became impure to a dead body twice - after all, he has already become impure and has not defiled anything any more than he had from the first instance! There is a dispute between Rabba and Rav Yosef who both disagree about what Rav Huna held. Abaye raised a difficulty against Rav Yosef from a braita to show that it is impossible that one would get two sets of lashes as one is already defiled. Rav Yosef responds by saying that the braita he quoted contradicts our Mishna where one does get two sets of lashes for two instances of coming in contact with the dead. Rav Yosef resolves the contradiction by establishing each case in a different way of impurity - the braita is where one is still attached to the first dead body and the Mishna is where one is not. The Gemara questions his answer but resolves it as well.  

Visit the TNR store: https://nextround.store/See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

How can you prepare for the shifting aging demographics in our country? In this episode, we're joined by Dr. Carol Robinson, a speaker and consultant in healthcare advocacy. She'll help listeners better understand the conversations they should be having, the research they should be doing, and the steps they should be taking to advocate and plan for their wants and wishes as they age.

Carol Robinson Public Safety Reporter for Alabama Media Group, joins the show to give more details on Alabama Freshman Brandon Miller not being charged in the killing of a woman that led to capital murder charges for his now former teammate Darius Miles and 20-year-old Michael “Buzz” Davis. John joins live from Spring Training in West Palm Beach, FL to break down where Will Levis might be taken in the draft, what he expects from the NFL combine and much more. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

AL.com's public safety reporter Carol Robinson joins the show to discuss the shooting story involving Alabama basketball players, and what she has learned reporting on the situation. Plus we continue to take your phone calls. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Study Guide Nazir 28 Rava brings a long braita to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman who differentiated between blemished and unblemished animals - if so, the braita should have mentioned that as well. The Gemara answers the question in the same way they answered Rav Hamnuna's question that preceded Rava's question. There is a debate between three - tanna kama, Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi (or Rabbi Meir). The Gemara even brings a fourth opinion. Is it until the blood is sprinkled, as that permits the woman to drink wine and therefore the husband can no longer claim that it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until the animal is slaughtered as it will cause the animal to be left to burn and we don't like to destroy sanctified items? Or is it until she shaves as he can claim shaving her head will be disgusting and therefore it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until shaving for a different reason as the shaving permits her to drink wine, not the sacrifices? A question is asked about destroying the sacrifice as sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong reason can be brought on the altar? It is resolved by saying they were referring to the sin offering which cannot be offered. The debate about shaving her hair being disgusting to her husband is based on a debate about how one perceives wearing a wig - is that a good alternative or not? A father can make his son into a nazir but a mother cannot. Why? What happens when a father makes his son a nazir and the son or relatives protest? What happens to money or animals that were already set aside for the sacrifice? 

Study Guide Nazir 28 Rava brings a long braita to raise a difficulty with Rav Nachman who differentiated between blemished and unblemished animals - if so, the braita should have mentioned that as well. The Gemara answers the question in the same way they answered Rav Hamnuna's question that preceded Rava's question. There is a debate between three - tanna kama, Rabbi Akiva and Rebbi (or Rabbi Meir). The Gemara even brings a fourth opinion. Is it until the blood is sprinkled, as that permits the woman to drink wine and therefore the husband can no longer claim that it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until the animal is slaughtered as it will cause the animal to be left to burn and we don't like to destroy sanctified items? Or is it until she shaves as he can claim shaving her head will be disgusting and therefore it is in the category of vows he can nullify? Or is it until shaving for a different reason as the shaving permits her to drink wine, not the sacrifices? A question is asked about destroying the sacrifice as sacrifices slaughtered for the wrong reason can be brought on the altar? It is resolved by saying they were referring to the sin offering which cannot be offered. The debate about shaving her hair being disgusting to her husband is based on a debate about how one perceives wearing a wig - is that a good alternative or not? A father can make his son into a nazir but a mother cannot. Why? What happens when a father makes his son a nazir and the son or relatives protest? What happens to money or animals that were already set aside for the sacrifice? 

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha. Today is her 9th yahrtzeit. “She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue.” Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn't specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa's response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.

Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Art Gould in memory of Art’s mother Shirley, Sarah bat Avraham v’Ziche Reicha. Today is her 9th yahrtzeit. “She was a life-long learner and a striver; a woman born before her time. She sewed, she made mosaics; she was always busy with something. She lives on in the tallitot and quilts she made for so many members of her family and her synagogue.” Rav Shimi bar Ashi raised a difficulty with those who limited the law about unspecified money for the nazirite sacrifices being used for voluntary burnt offerings for money only and not animals, pieces of silver, or piles of beams. Rav Shimi showed that also birds can remain unspecified until a later stage. Rav Papa responded with a source showing that animals do not remain unspecified, even in a case where one didn't specifically designate each one for each particular sacrifice as when a nazir set aside a female sheep, male sheep, and ram, but did not specify which sacrifice each one is for, it is as if they are already specified. Rav Shimi rejects Rav Papa's response as when one specifies those particular animals, it is clear which was meant for which sacrifice since the Torah specifically says that a female sheep is brought as a sin offering, the male sheep for a burnt offering and the ram for a peace offering and therefore, it is as if they were specifically designated. Earlier, Rav Nachan stated that even though the law of unspecified money does not apply to an animal, it would apply to an animal with a blemish, as it could be sold immediately and was therefore considered like money. Rav Hamnuna and Rava bring tannaitic sources to raise a difficulty against Rav Nachman.

This episode presents a setting of Shenandoah Falls from a jam at R House in Baltimore and discusses how much your string matter for playing the fiddleThe strings mentioned are Dominant, Obligato, and Pirastro strings. The artists mentioned are Pete Sutherland, Carol Robinson, Jeremiah McLane, and Leah Blackwell and the band the Clayfoot Strutters.Meg's new fiddle album Broke the Floor is available on Bandcamp!Find the sheet music for this fiddle tune on the Fiddle Studio blog. Get more information about Meg's books, courses, and membership for learning to play the fiddle at fiddlestudio.com.Keep in touch with Meg at meganbeller@fiddlestudio.com.

This week’s learning is sponsored by Rella Feldman in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman on his 11th yahrzeit, 2nd day of Chanuka. “Beloved husband, father & saba, devoted doctor & community leader. Learning sustained him during his illness & he’d be proud of his family members devoted to daily learning.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today – the first day of Hanukkah – we mark his 23rd yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. We love him and miss him very much."

This week’s learning is sponsored by Rella Feldman in loving memory of Dr. Charles Feldman on his 11th yahrzeit, 2nd day of Chanuka. “Beloved husband, father & saba, devoted doctor & community leader. Learning sustained him during his illness & he’d be proud of his family members devoted to daily learning.” Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson and Arthur Gould in loving memory of Carol’s father Louis Robinson, Yehuda Leib ben Moshe z”l. “Today – the first day of Hanukkah – we mark his 23rd yahrzeit. Louis was a devoted family man and active participant in his synagogue. We love him and miss him very much."

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away three years ago. "He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed."

Today's daf is sponsored by David and Mitzi Geffen in loving memory of Mitzi's brother, Jerry Lock of Efrat, who passed away three years ago. "He was the first in the family to make Aliyah to Israel and was a loving husband, father, grandfather, uncle and brother who is sorely missed."

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Ben-Tzion on his 20th yahrzeit and her maternal grandparents, Rav Moshe, on the 4th of Kislev and Tzipora Mashbaum, on the 23 of Kislev. "They are greatly missed." Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson in gratitude for the loving support she has received from Hadran and its students during her illness. So many of her fellow students have been in contact and brought comfort and strength to Carol during this challenging time. If Moshe didn't get paid from teaching Torah, what was the source of his wealth? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that the Torah was given to Moshe for him and his family, but Moshe decided to give it to the Jewish people. Rav Chisda raises several questions against this theory until it is reinterpreted to fit with the verses. What were Moshe's great qualities that must be found in one who God chooses to communicate with? The Gemara goes on to prove from where we see that Moshe had each of these qualities. We learn from Moshe, Shmuel, Amos, and Yona that prophets are wealthy. Verses are brought to prove this. One who is vowed not to benefit from another, his wife and children can be sustained by them, but one cannot feed his/her kosher animals. There is a debate regarding non-kosher animals. Rav Huna said that one can marry off one’s daughter to another if one is forbidden to benefit from another. To what case is he referring – when the father of the bride is forbidden to the future husband or when the future husband is forbidden to the father of the bride? Rabbi Yaakov said that one who forbids one’s son benefit to learn Torah (different explanations regarding the exact case and who is forbidden to whom), certain basic/easy actions are permitted, like filling up water, lighting a candle. Rabbi Yitzchak adds: roasting a small fish. Rabbi Yochanan said that one can pour a cup of peace for another, even if the other is forbidden to benefit from them. What is a cup of peace? Can one feed one’s Canaanite slaves? Is that considered benefit?  

Today's daf is sponsored by Rochelle Cheifetz in loving memory of her father, Shragai Cohen, Shraga Feivel ben Avraham Ben-Tzion on his 20th yahrzeit and her maternal grandparents, Rav Moshe, on the 4th of Kislev and Tzipora Mashbaum, on the 23 of Kislev. "They are greatly missed." Today’s daf is sponsored by Carol Robinson in gratitude for the loving support she has received from Hadran and its students during her illness. So many of her fellow students have been in contact and brought comfort and strength to Carol during this challenging time. If Moshe didn't get paid from teaching Torah, what was the source of his wealth? Rabbi Yosi son of Rabbi Chanina said that the Torah was given to Moshe for him and his family, but Moshe decided to give it to the Jewish people. Rav Chisda raises several questions against this theory until it is reinterpreted to fit with the verses. What were Moshe's great qualities that must be found in one who God chooses to communicate with? The Gemara goes on to prove from where we see that Moshe had each of these qualities. We learn from Moshe, Shmuel, Amos, and Yona that prophets are wealthy. Verses are brought to prove this. One who is vowed not to benefit from another, his wife and children can be sustained by them, but one cannot feed his/her kosher animals. There is a debate regarding non-kosher animals. Rav Huna said that one can marry off one’s daughter to another if one is forbidden to benefit from another. To what case is he referring – when the father of the bride is forbidden to the future husband or when the future husband is forbidden to the father of the bride? Rabbi Yaakov said that one who forbids one’s son benefit to learn Torah (different explanations regarding the exact case and who is forbidden to whom), certain basic/easy actions are permitted, like filling up water, lighting a candle. Rabbi Yitzchak adds: roasting a small fish. Rabbi Yochanan said that one can pour a cup of peace for another, even if the other is forbidden to benefit from them. What is a cup of peace? Can one feed one’s Canaanite slaves? Is that considered benefit?  

Study Guide Nedarim 14 Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould for the refuah shleima of his wife, Carol Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah. "This is dedicated to the healing of my beloved wife and in gratitude to our Hadran family for all the notes and messages of support and in general just holding us in their hearts as we go through this difficult period." The Gemara gives two explanations as to how the Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, but the second explanation is rejected. What is the source of the halacha that one can take a vow by attaching it to another vowed item, but not a forbidden item? Why is it not possible to learn from the same verse to also include a forbidden item? The Mishna stated that the one who vows that he will not benefit from his wife with the words "She is forbidden to be like my mother" should be strict and undo the vow. But this is contradicted by an express braita. Abaye and Raba each resolve this in a different manner. Raba distinguished between a Torah scholar and an am haaeretz. Proof that the law sometimes distinguishes between these groups and requires annulling a vow only for an am haaretz can be learned from a braita about one who takes a vow on a Torah. The Gemara brings the braita in its entirety and discusses a difficulty with one of the lines of the braita and brings three resolutions. The Mishna says that one who says a vow not to sleep or not to talk or not to walk, must keep the vow. This Mishna will be further explained in Nedarim 15. The Gemara brings a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Nachman regarding one who said "I vow (konam) my eyes not to sleep today if I sleep tomorrow." Are they allowed to sleep today, and we will assume they will be careful tomorrow not to sleep so as not the break his vow, or do we tell them they cannot sleep today so that if they sleep tomorrow, the vow will not be broken? In the event that the declaration was said in the opposite direction  "My eyes will be konam to sleep tomorrow if I sleep today" both agree that one need not be careful not to sleep today as the fulfillment of the vow is tomorrow and that we can assume people will be careful about. Whereas in the previous case, it was only fulfillment of the condition that was tomorrow and that, perhaps, people are less careful about. 

Study Guide Nedarim 14 Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould for the refuah shleima of his wife, Carol Robinson, Karina Gola bat Huddah. "This is dedicated to the healing of my beloved wife and in gratitude to our Hadran family for all the notes and messages of support and in general just holding us in their hearts as we go through this difficult period." The Gemara gives two explanations as to how the Mishna can be explained according to Rabbi Yehuda's opinion, but the second explanation is rejected. What is the source of the halacha that one can take a vow by attaching it to another vowed item, but not a forbidden item? Why is it not possible to learn from the same verse to also include a forbidden item? The Mishna stated that the one who vows that he will not benefit from his wife with the words "She is forbidden to be like my mother" should be strict and undo the vow. But this is contradicted by an express braita. Abaye and Raba each resolve this in a different manner. Raba distinguished between a Torah scholar and an am haaeretz. Proof that the law sometimes distinguishes between these groups and requires annulling a vow only for an am haaretz can be learned from a braita about one who takes a vow on a Torah. The Gemara brings the braita in its entirety and discusses a difficulty with one of the lines of the braita and brings three resolutions. The Mishna says that one who says a vow not to sleep or not to talk or not to walk, must keep the vow. This Mishna will be further explained in Nedarim 15. The Gemara brings a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Nachman regarding one who said "I vow (konam) my eyes not to sleep today if I sleep tomorrow." Are they allowed to sleep today, and we will assume they will be careful tomorrow not to sleep so as not the break his vow, or do we tell them they cannot sleep today so that if they sleep tomorrow, the vow will not be broken? In the event that the declaration was said in the opposite direction  "My eyes will be konam to sleep tomorrow if I sleep today" both agree that one need not be careful not to sleep today as the fulfillment of the vow is tomorrow and that we can assume people will be careful about. Whereas in the previous case, it was only fulfillment of the condition that was tomorrow and that, perhaps, people are less careful about. 

Property developer, investor and WealthBuilders wealth coach, Carol Robinson has a true passion for navigating people through the choppy waters of life and property investing to a place of true wealth on their terms.  She has been investing in properties for over 15 years, building a large and diversified portfolio across many property investing, acquisition and development strategies, as well as, using creative financing. Wealth is about certainty. When life is uncertain, like it is right now, you need to create as many sources of certain income as possible and this is what Carol has done. Tune in to hear how and why Carol made the transition from an investor to a property developer, the challenges she has faced and why she feels being self-aware is an essential quality to have in property investing.  Resources Mentioned In This Episode:>> Carol Robinson [LinkedIn]>> Wealth Dynamics Test>> WT113 - What if you can't find your why>> EP158 - Planning gains w/ Fabio Frisenda>> Enrol: 6-week online D.E.B.I.T.S Challenge>> Join the WealthBuilders Academy>> REGISTER HERE FOR FREE RESOURCES ACCESS If you have been enjoying listening to WealthTalk - Please Leave Us A Review!

Carol Robinson joins JT with the latest on a doggie daycare building on fire in Birmingham.

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould & Carol Robinson on the occasion of their 49th wedding anniversary. "We met each other at Hillel House in the summer of 1971 and have been inseparable since our very first Shabbat together. For once in his life Art knew the right thing to say - "Sit with me and I will get you a siddur."(She said yes!) We are grateful to HaShem and to Carol's medical team for bringing us to this day. And for Carol, who always knows the right thing to say and the right thing to do... רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה" There is a debate between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis about a woman who remarries her husband after getting divorced - if he dies childless, can she do yibum. They have the same debate regarding a minor in this situation. If she was married off by her father and divorced, she is no longer considered under her father's responsibility (meaning that he can't marry her off), even if she is still a minor. So if the husband remarries her, all agree that there is no yibum as by Torah law, she is considered divorced, since her ability to remarry was only of rabbinical law, and one is forbidden to marry the brother of one's divorced husband. The Gemara brings four different explanations for Rabbi Elazar who forbids yibum in all the cases. According to Rabbi Elazar, the rival wife in these cases can do yibum. If two brothers are married to two minor sisters (married off by their mother or brother) or two deaf-mutes, if one dies, the other is exempt from yibum as she falls to yibum to her sister's husband. But if one sister was a minor and the deceased's wife was not a minor, what happens with yibum? Three opinions are brought in the Mishna. One suggestion is to encourage the minor to refuse him so that her sister can do yibum. The Gemara questions this with a braita that lists three actions one should pursue and three that one should avoid and refusal is listed with the actions to avoid - so how is it that we encourage this minor to refuse? An exception is made here because it is in order to allow the fulfillment of yibum. The six actions listed are discussed more in-depth. In the case where a minor's sister fell to yibum to her husband, Rabban Gamliel held that we wait until the minor gets older and then the yevama becomes exempt from yibum. Rav explains (in answer to a question from  Rabbi Elazar) that the marriage of the minor becomes a Torah law marriage which will exempt the sister only when they engage in intercourse after she becomes of age. Based on this, Rabban Gamliel exempts the older sister as he must hold that one who betroths his yevama's sister, exempts the yevama. Rav Sheshet questions this assumption of Rav based on a braita but Ravin is able to explain the braita to work with Rav's understanding.

Today's daf is sponsored by Art Gould & Carol Robinson on the occasion of their 49th wedding anniversary. "We met each other at Hillel House in the summer of 1971 and have been inseparable since our very first Shabbat together. For once in his life Art knew the right thing to say - "Sit with me and I will get you a siddur."(She said yes!) We are grateful to HaShem and to Carol's medical team for bringing us to this day. And for Carol, who always knows the right thing to say and the right thing to do... רַבּ֣וֹת בָּ֭נוֹת עָ֣שׂוּ חָ֑יִל וְ֝אַ֗תְּ עָלִ֥ית עַל־כֻּלָּֽנָה" There is a debate between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis about a woman who remarries her husband after getting divorced - if he dies childless, can she do yibum. They have the same debate regarding a minor in this situation. If she was married off by her father and divorced, she is no longer considered under her father's responsibility (meaning that he can't marry her off), even if she is still a minor. So if the husband remarries her, all agree that there is no yibum as by Torah law, she is considered divorced, since her ability to remarry was only of rabbinical law, and one is forbidden to marry the brother of one's divorced husband. The Gemara brings four different explanations for Rabbi Elazar who forbids yibum in all the cases. According to Rabbi Elazar, the rival wife in these cases can do yibum. If two brothers are married to two minor sisters (married off by their mother or brother) or two deaf-mutes, if one dies, the other is exempt from yibum as she falls to yibum to her sister's husband. But if one sister was a minor and the deceased's wife was not a minor, what happens with yibum? Three opinions are brought in the Mishna. One suggestion is to encourage the minor to refuse him so that her sister can do yibum. The Gemara questions this with a braita that lists three actions one should pursue and three that one should avoid and refusal is listed with the actions to avoid - so how is it that we encourage this minor to refuse? An exception is made here because it is in order to allow the fulfillment of yibum. The six actions listed are discussed more in-depth. In the case where a minor's sister fell to yibum to her husband, Rabban Gamliel held that we wait until the minor gets older and then the yevama becomes exempt from yibum. Rav explains (in answer to a question from  Rabbi Elazar) that the marriage of the minor becomes a Torah law marriage which will exempt the sister only when they engage in intercourse after she becomes of age. Based on this, Rabban Gamliel exempts the older sister as he must hold that one who betroths his yevama's sister, exempts the yevama. Rav Sheshet questions this assumption of Rav based on a braita but Ravin is able to explain the braita to work with Rav's understanding.

B•Inspired Podcast would like to introduce our season six episode three featuring special guest Carol Robinson. In this episode, Carol will talk about a spyware computer scam that allowed for hackers to take control of her computer, withdraw hundreds of thousands of dollars from her bank accounts, open up an equity line of credit and leave her powerless. Carol will be joined by daughter Pam Robinson who will talk about the impact this online scam has had on the family and how sharing this story to help others is so important.If you or someone you know has been a victim of a computer scam B•INSPIRED encourages you to reach out to your local authorities. Computer scams are rapidly increasing each day and urge our viewers to take a close look before you click, answer or sign your name to anything.B•INSPIRED YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx6p...B•INSPIRED Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/BInspiredpod...B•INSPIRED Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/binspiredpo...B•INSPIRED Twitter: https://twitter.com/binspiredpodca1

Josh and David open with a discussion of Josh's interview with Mary Ryan, the sister of U.S. Senate candidate Mike Durant. AL.com reporter Carol Robinson and WHNT reporter Brian Lawson zoom in to discuss the insane run to Evansville by the fugitive Whites. We wrap this week with a discussion of David's column on abortion, some gambling talk, and this week's Rightwing Nut of the Week. Send us a question: We take a bit of time each week to answer questions from our audience about Alabama politics — or Alabama in general. If you have a question about a politician, a policy, or a trend — really anything — you can shoot us an email at apwproducer@gmail.com or with this form. You can also send it to us on Facebook and Twitter. Or by emailing us a voice recording to our email with your question, and we may play it on air. Either way, make sure you include your name (first name is fine) and the city or county where you live. About APW: APW is a weekly Alabama political podcast hosted by Josh Moon and David Person, two longtime Alabama political journalists. More information is available on our website. Listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook. Music credits: Music courtesy of Mr. Smith via the Free Music Archive. Visit Mr. Smith's page here.

*Season One - Episode Twelve* John Archibald calls Carol Robinson “the Coco Chanel of Crime” because of her style but she freely admits that she'll show up to a crime scene with a coat on, and not much else under it, too. We weren't on speaking terms at one point but now we laugh and love and call each other dear friend! Her fan mail could make a sailor blush and to the "WTAT" crowd?! Love her or hate her, there rarely is an in between, she is VIP Platinum Status!

Carol reflects on the joys and challenges of recruiting for a values based company. "It's like magic when you find the right person for the right position". Enjoy.