POPULARITY
46 episodes with Hama
46 episodes with Hama
9 episodes with Hama
6 episodes with Hama
8 episodes with Hama
3 episodes with Hama
10 episodes with Hama
5 episodes with Hama
4 episodes with Hama
5 episodes with Hama
4 episodes with Hama
4 episodes with Hama
3 episodes with Hama
4 episodes with Hama
2 episodes with Hama
2 episodes with Hama
4 episodes with Hama
2 episodes with Hama
In this episode, Bree Marinier and Gabriella Haddad discuss the implementation of the proposed Health and Allied, Managers and Admin Enterprise Agreement 2025-2027.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma. The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that someone who eats a shelishi of chullin treated like kodashim is still pure to eat actual kodashim, because only real kodashim that are sanctified by an action (like a meal offering when placed in a sanctified vessel or an animal when slaughtered) can create a revi'i (fourth degree). Rami bar Hama challenges this from Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion in the Mishna in Taharot (2:2) that a shelishi that was treated as teruma is considered a sheni for kodashim. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between items treated as teruma and those treated as kodashim. The reason to distinguish is that those who are careful from impurities for teruma are not cautious enough regarding kodashim. This distinction is proven from a Mishna in Chagiga (18b). Rava, however, disagrees with the application of the Mishna in Chagiga to this case, and disagrees with Rav Yitzchak. A difficulty is raised against this distinction from a Mishna in Chagiga (24b) where one designated part of the wine in a barrel of teruma to be kodashim. If the protection for teruma is not valid for kodashim, wouldn't the teruma wine make the kodashim wine impure? To resolve this they distinguish between teruma and kodashim that are combined and those that are not combined. A second difficulty on Rav Yitzchak is brought from a braita that clearly states that a shelishi of items that are treated as kodashim passes on impurity to kodashim. To resolve this difficulty, they conclude that there is a tannaitic debate and brings a braita with two opinions that both support Rav Yitzchak's position. Rabbi Shimon stated in the Mishna that shechita makes the animal susceptible to impurity. Rav Asi explains that Rabbi Shimon means only shechita makes it susceptible, but the blood of the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this to see if he means only shechita, and blood from the slaughter would not be considered a liquid that could render something susceptible to impurity, or did he mean shechita in addition to blood, as blood of the slaughter could also render something susceptible to impurity. Our Mishna is brought to strengthen Rav Asi's reading, but it is rejected as inconclusive. Then three other tannaitic sources are brought to try to either prove or disprove Rav Assi's claim, however, all are deemed inconclusive.
Rabbi Yonatan says in the name of Rabbi that someone who eats a shelishi (third degree) of actual teruma is forbidden to eat teruma but is allowed to touch it. Ulla had said the same thing regarding one who eats a shelishi of chullin that was treated like teruma. The Gemara explains why both statements were needed and could not have necessarily been derived one from the other. Rav Yitzchak bar Shmuel bar Marta says that someone who eats a shelishi of chullin treated like kodashim is still pure to eat actual kodashim, because only real kodashim that are sanctified by an action (like a meal offering when placed in a sanctified vessel or an animal when slaughtered) can create a revi'i (fourth degree). Rami bar Hama challenges this from Rabbi Yehoshua's opinion in the Mishna in Taharot (2:2) that a shelishi that was treated as teruma is considered a sheni for kodashim. The difficulty is resolved by distinguishing between items treated as teruma and those treated as kodashim. The reason to distinguish is that those who are careful from impurities for teruma are not cautious enough regarding kodashim. This distinction is proven from a Mishna in Chagiga (18b). Rava, however, disagrees with the application of the Mishna in Chagiga to this case, and disagrees with Rav Yitzchak. A difficulty is raised against this distinction from a Mishna in Chagiga (24b) where one designated part of the wine in a barrel of teruma to be kodashim. If the protection for teruma is not valid for kodashim, wouldn't the teruma wine make the kodashim wine impure? To resolve this they distinguish between teruma and kodashim that are combined and those that are not combined. A second difficulty on Rav Yitzchak is brought from a braita that clearly states that a shelishi of items that are treated as kodashim passes on impurity to kodashim. To resolve this difficulty, they conclude that there is a tannaitic debate and brings a braita with two opinions that both support Rav Yitzchak's position. Rabbi Shimon stated in the Mishna that shechita makes the animal susceptible to impurity. Rav Asi explains that Rabbi Shimon means only shechita makes it susceptible, but the blood of the animal does not. The Gemara challenges this to see if he means only shechita, and blood from the slaughter would not be considered a liquid that could render something susceptible to impurity, or did he mean shechita in addition to blood, as blood of the slaughter could also render something susceptible to impurity. Our Mishna is brought to strengthen Rav Asi's reading, but it is rejected as inconclusive. Then three other tannaitic sources are brought to try to either prove or disprove Rav Assi's claim, however, all are deemed inconclusive.
Fluent Fiction - Hebrew: A Sacred Encounter: Finding Hope at the Kotel HaMa'aravi Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/he/episode/2026-05-21-07-38-20-he Story Transcript:He: הקיר הגבוה של הכותל המערבי התבלט בגובהו תחת אור השמש החם של אביב מאוחר.En: The high wall of the Kotel HaMa'aravi stood out in its height under the warm light of the late spring sun.He: אורי עמד במרכז הרחבה, מרגיש קטן לצד האבנים הכבדות והעתיקות שהחזיקו סודות של תפילות רבות.En: Uri stood in the center of the plaza, feeling small next to the heavy, ancient stones that held the secrets of many prayers.He: הוא הגיע לירושלים כדי למצוא חיבור חדש, להבין יותר על ה' ולמצוא שקט פנימי.En: He came to Jerusalem to find a new connection, to understand more about Hashem and to find inner peace.He: לידו, נעמי עמדה נושמת עמוק, מבקשת להתקרב לאלו שנמצאים כבר לא איתה.En: Beside him, Naomi stood, taking deep breaths, seeking closeness to those who are no longer with her.He: סבתה של נעמי, שהלכה לעולמה לאחרונה, הייתה אהובה על כל משפחתה, והצער שהשאירה פתח פצע עמוק בנפשה.En: Naomi's grandmother, who had recently passed away, was loved by her entire family, and the sorrow she left opened a deep wound in Naomi's soul.He: כשחג השבועות היה באוויר, רחבת הכותל התמלאה במבקרים ותיירים, כולם מלאים בתקווה ובתפילותיהם.En: As the festival of Shavuot was in the air, the Kotel plaza filled with visitors and tourists, all full of hope and their own prayers.He: קולות שירה ותפילה התערבלו ברעש העיר ירושלים, ושרו על הנצח והאבנים.En: Songs and prayers mixed with the noise of the city of Jerusalem, singing of eternity and stones.He: אורי הביט סביבו, והבין שהוא חייב לדבר עם מישהו.En: Uri looked around and realized he needed to talk to someone.He: הוא הרגיש את הלב שלו נפתח קצת, והחליט לגשת לאישה שעמדה לבד בקרבתו.En: He felt his heart open a little and decided to approach the woman standing alone nearby.He: "שלום," הוא אמר, קולו חנוק מעט מהתרגשות.En: "Hello," he said, his voice slightly choked with excitement.He: "אני אורי. את באה לכאן הרבה?"En: "I'm Uri. Do you come here often?"He: נעמי חייכה בעדינות, משב רוח קל הביא איתו ניחוח פרחים מהשוק הסמוך.En: Naomi smiled gently, a light breeze bringing with it the scent of flowers from the nearby market.He: "כן," היא ענתה בשקט.En: "Yes," she answered softly.He: "אני נעמי. סבתא שלי לימדה אותי שבכותל מקבלים כוחות חדשים."En: "I'm Naomi. My grandmother taught me that at the Kotel, you gain new strength."He: השיחה ביניהם זרמה בנחת, וכל אחד מהם חש איך המשקל על לבם הופך קל יותר.En: Their conversation flowed easily, and each of them felt how the weight on their hearts became lighter.He: אורי סיפר לנעמי על מסעו הפנימי, על חיפוש אחרי תחושת שייכות.En: Uri told Naomi about his internal journey, his search for a sense of belonging.He: נעמי, בתורה, סיפרה על האובדן שלה ועל הרצון למצוא שלווה.En: Naomi, in turn, spoke about her loss and her desire to find peace.He: המילים פתחו ביניהם גשר של חום ורכות, ושלווה שנשאבה מהכותל יצרה תחושת חיבור חזקה מזו שיכלו לדמיין.En: The words created a bridge of warmth and tenderness between them, and the peace drawn from the Kotel forged a strong connection greater than they could have imagined.He: לאחר שעה ארוכה של דיבור, אורי ונעמי הבינו כי פגשו אחד את השנייה מתוך סקרנות ואומץ.En: After a long hour of talking, Uri and Naomi understood that they had met each other out of curiosity and courage.He: אורי הרגיש סוף סוף שייך, ונעמי הביטה קדימה בתקווה חדשה.En: Uri finally felt like he belonged, and Naomi looked forward with new hope.He: הם החליטו לשמור על קשר, להיות שם זה לזה במסעיהם האישיים.En: They decided to keep in touch, to be there for each other in their personal journeys.He: בסופו של היום, כשנפרדו בדרכם, הכותל עמד ללא שינוי, אך ליבה של נעמי היה קל יותר, ולבו של אורי היה מלא בתובנות חדשות על חיבורים ואהבה.En: By the end of the day, as they parted ways, the Kotel stood unchanged, but Naomi's heart was lighter, and Uri's heart was filled with new insights about connections and love.He: השניים נשארו בקשר, משאירים את הכותל בעיניהם כסמל של תקווה והתחדשות.En: The two remained in contact, keeping the Kotel in their eyes as a symbol of hope and renewal. Vocabulary Words:height: גובהplaza: רחבהancient: עתיקותprayers: תפילותconnection: חיבורcloseness: להתקרבsorrow: צערwound: פצעeternity: הנצחrealized: הביןchoked: חנוקexcitement: התרגשותbreeze: משב רוחscent: ניחוחmarket: שוקflowed: זרמהbelonging: שייכותloss: אובדןtenderness: רכותforged: יצרהcuriosity: סקרנותcourage: אומץrenewal: התחדשותinner: פנימיjourneys: מסעremain: נשארוhope: תקווהinsights: תובנותpeace: שקטstrength: כוחותBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/fluent-fiction-hebrew--5818690/support.
Palestine and transgenderism may seem like very different issues, but they're all a part of one single issue: The left's war on civilization. The show exposes this after threats from a pro-Hama/transgenderism alliance forced the postponement a TPUSA event featuring Chloe Cole. Dr. Oz joins to lay out the full scope of the $100 billion/year fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, and how it can be defeated. Rep. Brandon Gill reveals his own bid to expose rampant immigrant fraud via Congress. Dr. Peter McCullough talks about hantavirus, investigating Covid crimes, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Palestine and transgenderism may seem like very different issues, but they're all a part of one single issue: The left's war on civilization. The show exposes this after threats from a pro-Hama/transgenderism alliance forced the postponement a TPUSA event featuring Chloe Cole. Dr. Oz joins to lay out the full scope of the $100 billion/year fraud in Medicare and Medicaid, and how it can be defeated. Rep. Brandon Gill reveals his own bid to expose rampant immigrant fraud via Congress. Dr. Peter McCullough talks about hantavirus, investigating Covid crimes, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll, Kevin Hornsby, and Charles Archer discuss the latest global market developments, including geopolitical tensions, energy markets, and macro trends shaping investor sentiment.The show features interviews with Sovereign Metals Limited, Zenith Energy, and Active Energy Group PLC, covering key updates across critical minerals, energy production, and digital infrastructure, alongside insights into financing, project development, and future growth plans.The episode wraps up with the latest market movers and a lighter look at football, Formula 1, and current events.00:00 - 00:11:04 Weekly News Roundup00:11:04 #SVML Interview00:31:10 #ZEN Interview00:47:31 #AEG Interview01:01:59 #TRAF 01:03:07 #WCAP 01:04:17 #DELTA 01:05:19 #HAMA 01:06:35 #GWMO 01:08:04 #AJAX #EGT Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll, Kevin Hornsby and Charles Archer deliver their April 2026 quarterly portfolio review, breaking down key stocks across the watchlist including #DELTA, #GMET, #AMRQ, #BZT, #EPP, #SVML, #XTR, #SVNS, #JLP, #ARS, #AJAX and more.The discussion covers major movers, market trends, and high-conviction “moonshot” plays, with insights into commodities, energy, AI, and the global macro backdrop shaping investor sentiment.00:00 - 00:02:08 Intro00:02:08 #DELTA 00:03:16 #GMET 00:04:30 #AMRQ 00:05:36 #BZT 00:06:46 #EPP 00:07:39 #SVML 00:09:54 #XTR 00:11:59 #SVNS 00:14:04 #JLP 00:17:42 #ARS 00:18:16 #AJAX 00:24:24 #GWMO 00:27:42 #ATN 00:32:54 #EGT 00:39:05 #ZEN 00:41:19 #IMM 00:44:58 #ALRT 00:45:51 #AFC 00:47:32 #AFP 00:48:12 #AEG 00:49:52 #UPL 00:50:01 #WCAP 00:50:13 #HAMA Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
Send us Fan MailIn this episode, Yoshio Hama shares why discipline—not motivation—is the key to a lasting yoga practice.If you've ever struggled to stay consistent, felt too busy to practice, or found your motivation fading, this conversation offers a grounded and honest perspective on what it really takes to keep showing up.Todd McLaughlin and Yoshio dive into the deeper meaning of tapas (inner fire), how practice evolves over time, and the reality of maintaining commitment through life's challenges. This isn't about perfection—it's about building a sustainable, lifelong relationship with yoga.You'll learn:• Why discipline matters more than motivation• How to stay consistent when life gets busy• The role of tapas in personal growth• How your yoga practice evolves over time• Practical insights for maintaining a daily practiceWhether you're new to yoga or have been practicing for years, this episode will help you reconnect with your purpose and keep moving forward—one practice at a time.Visit Yoshio: https://www.instagram.com/activemeditation/Listen & subscribe for more conversations on yoga, healing, and personal growth.
Arabisme et syrianité : le nationalisme du Baas au clan Assad - Épisode 6 - Conférence publique du 12 mars 2026 8mn - Présentation du fonds Michel Seurat, par Didier Inowlocki, chargé de collections pour le domaine arabe à la BULAC 08:00 - 00:52mn : Ziad Majed, Professeur (Université américaine de Paris) 00:52mn - 1h20 : Thomas Pierret, Chargé de recherche (CNRS, IREMAM, Aix-Marseille Université) Dans une époque marquée par l'impact du colonialisme et les défis identitaires, le Parti Baas est un parti fondé relativement tardivement par rapport aux autres grands mouvements du nationalisme arabe. Officialisé à Damas en 1947 par Michel Aflaq et Salah al-din Bitar à Damas, il avait pour ambition l'unité politique du monde arabe et la justice sociale. Les idées du Parti socialiste d'Akram al-Hourani sont intégrées lors d'une fusion en 1953 et donnent au Baas sa base idéologique singulière, rurale et révolutionnaire, face au marxisme d'une part, et au nassérisme d'autre part. En 1958, l'union entre l'Égypte et la Syrie forme la République arabe unie, soutenue par les bassistes malgré leurs hésitations envers Nasser. Cette union s'effondre en 1961, entraînant une tentative des bassistes de se réorganiser comme alternative au nassérisme. Les coups d'Etat de 1963 puis de 1966 manifestent le rôle croissant des militaires au sein du parti et la division avec la branche irakienne (notamment sur la question de la Palestine). Le "néo-Baas" qui prend le pouvoir en 1966 est mené par l'aile militaire (H. al-Assad devient ministre de la Défense) et nationaliste syrienne, hostile à la direction historique du parti (qui est arrêtée ou part en exil) et soucieuse de modérer le programme socialiste. Ce mouvement nationaliste, laïc mais valorisant la culture arabe et l'islam comme héritage culturel, prônant la justice sociale et les nationalisations, deviendra lors de la prise de pouvoir d'Hafez al-Assad en 1970, l'instrument d'un pouvoir personnel. Combinant culte de la personnalité, recrutement militaire des membres de sa communauté (alaouite) et multiplication des services de renseignements, Hafez al Assad assure un contrôle total sur la société syrienne. Le régime écrase toute opposition comme à Hama en 1982 ou dans la prison de Palmyre. Malgré un discours socialiste, le système évolue vers la corruption et le clientélisme avec la mise en place de réseaux familiaux autour du clan Assad. Sur le plan international, la Syrie adopte une politique pragmatique : instrumentalisation de la cause palestinienne, troupes combattant sous drapeau américain lors de l'invasion du Koweït, accord avec l'Arabie Saoudite et les Etats-Unis pour obtenir le contrôle du Liban après les accords de Taëf. En 2000, à la mort d'Hafez al-Assad, une modification constitutionnelle permet à son fils Bachar d'accéder à la présidence malgré son jeune âge (34 ans). Sous son règne, l'économie syrienne commence à se libéraliser avec de nouvelles privatisations et une nouvelle génération d'hommes d'affaires proches du régime ouvrant la voie à plus de corruption. Le régime reste politiquement fermé et la révolte éclate en 2011. Modération : Philippe Pétriat (Université Paris 1-Panthéon Sorbonne, IISMM) Programmation : Sophie Bilardello (CNRS, IISMM) Captation : BULAC
The verse in Vayikra 2:12 regarding the unique case where one can bring leaven and honey to the Temple on Shavuot uses the phrase "As an offering of the first produce you can offer them." Rabbi Elazar derived that the word "them" is exclusionary. It means that only regarding the two loaves and the bikkurim the ramp of the altar is considered like the altar (as derived from the words following that phrase). Items that came from an item that was burned on the altar are forbidden to be burned on the altar, but can be brought onto the ramp. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him and forbids even those items to be brought on the ramp. He must have a different drasha on the word "them." To explain his reading of the verse, the Gemara quotes a braita which derives from "them" that even the community cannot bring two loaves as a voluntary sacrifice. The Gemara brings a contradictory braita that seems to say that the two loaves can be brought as a voluntary offering, but this understanding is ultimately rejected. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda whether the words "you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire" (Vayikra 2:11) only excludes items from which part of it was burned on the altar, or does it exclude any item that is considered a korban (offering) but was not meant to be burned on the altar, such as a bird sin offering or the oil of the leper. Rav Chisda responded that this is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. A drasha on the words "because all leaven and all honey" teaches that one is liable for offering even a small amount and even in a mixture. Rava and Abaye disagree about what is meant by a "small amount." Abaye says it is half an olive-bulk, while Rava holds it is half a handful. Their difference of opinion derives from whether they hold a handful needs to be at least the size of two olives and is it only considered a halakhically significant burning on the altar if the item burned is the size of an olive (Rava), or if the handful can be less than two olives and burning less than one olive is considered halakhically significant (Abaye). If one offered leavened dough and honey together on the altar, how many sets of lashes (if any) would one receive? Rava holds that one would receive four sets - one for leaven, one for honey, one for a mixture with leaven, and one for a mixture with honey. Abaye explains that this is a "lav shebikhlalot" - a negative prohibition including many prohibitions - and one does not receive lashes for this type of negative prohibition. Some explain Abaye to be saying that there would be no sets of lashes for this action, while others explain that one would receive lashes for the leaven and the honey but not for the mixture.
The verse in Vayikra 2:12 regarding the unique case where one can bring leaven and honey to the Temple on Shavuot uses the phrase "As an offering of the first produce you can offer them." Rabbi Elazar derived that the word "them" is exclusionary. It means that only regarding the two loaves and the bikkurim the ramp of the altar is considered like the altar (as derived from the words following that phrase). Items that came from an item that was burned on the altar are forbidden to be burned on the altar, but can be brought onto the ramp. Rabbi Yochanan disagrees with him and forbids even those items to be brought on the ramp. He must have a different drasha on the word "them." To explain his reading of the verse, the Gemara quotes a braita which derives from "them" that even the community cannot bring two loaves as a voluntary sacrifice. The Gemara brings a contradictory braita that seems to say that the two loaves can be brought as a voluntary offering, but this understanding is ultimately rejected. Rami bar Hama asked Rav Chisda whether the words "you shall not burn any of it as an offering made by fire" (Vayikra 2:11) only excludes items from which part of it was burned on the altar, or does it exclude any item that is considered a korban (offering) but was not meant to be burned on the altar, such as a bird sin offering or the oil of the leper. Rav Chisda responded that this is a tannaitic debate between Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Akiva. A drasha on the words "because all leaven and all honey" teaches that one is liable for offering even a small amount and even in a mixture. Rava and Abaye disagree about what is meant by a "small amount." Abaye says it is half an olive-bulk, while Rava holds it is half a handful. Their difference of opinion derives from whether they hold a handful needs to be at least the size of two olives and is it only considered a halakhically significant burning on the altar if the item burned is the size of an olive (Rava), or if the handful can be less than two olives and burning less than one olive is considered halakhically significant (Abaye). If one offered leavened dough and honey together on the altar, how many sets of lashes (if any) would one receive? Rava holds that one would receive four sets - one for leaven, one for honey, one for a mixture with leaven, and one for a mixture with honey. Abaye explains that this is a "lav shebikhlalot" - a negative prohibition including many prohibitions - and one does not receive lashes for this type of negative prohibition. Some explain Abaye to be saying that there would be no sets of lashes for this action, while others explain that one would receive lashes for the leaven and the honey but not for the mixture.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll and Kevin Hornsby begin by discussing rising tensions around Iran and the potential impact on oil prices, gold and wider market volatility as geopolitical risk returns to the forefront.The show then moves into company interviews, starting with Hamak Strategy, outlining its gold and Bitcoin treasury approach and long-term value strategy. This is followed by Critical Mineral Resources, discussing its newly granted 10-year Moroccan mining licence and development plans, before the main guest Xtract Resources, which provides a detailed update on project progress, strategy and growth ambitions.The episode closes with small-cap movers and broader commentary on commodities and the increasing strategic importance of copper, rare earths and antimony in a shifting global supply chain.00:00 - 00:09:00 Weekly News Roundup00:09:00 #HAMA Interview00:34:35 #CMRS Interview00:51:10 #XTR Interview01:16:20 #IQE 01:17:15 #REE 01:17:41 #KEN 01:19:57 #ATN 01:21:02 #GMET 01:21:56 #FCM 01:23:25 #BRES 01:24:18 #AJAX 01:24:41 #GRX 01:24:54 #SVML 01:25:06 #MAST 01:26:17 #AEG 01:26:38 #DGQ Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll and Kevin Hornsby break down the week's biggest market stories — from UK political headlines and global macro tensions to the continued strength in gold, silver and Bitcoin, and what could unfold in the physical metals market as key futures deadlines approach.Kev reports back from Indaba with on-the-ground insights from across the mining and small-cap space, highlighting the companies that drew the most investor interest during a packed live presentation event.The show also features an in-depth discussion with Michael Jones, CEO of Delta Gold Technologies, alongside commentary from Charlie Archer, exploring gold-based quantum computing research, university partnerships and the wider commercial potential of nano-gold in quantum applications.The episode wraps up with the week's movers and shakers across resources, rare earths, oil and small caps, plus what to watch next in the markets.00:00 - 00:08:14 Weekly News Roundup00:08:14 Indaba Visit ( #KEN - #FMET - #KEFI - #BZT - #AJAX - #HAMA - #AFP - #CMRS - #PAT - #MIN - #JLP ) 00:23:44 #DGQ Interview00:42:54 #CLA 00:43:17 #SNDA 00:46:33 #HREE 00:46:10 #REE 00:47:39 #AFRN 00:48:40 #HALO 00:50:23 #FMET 00:51:36 #HEX 00:52:07 #BZT Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll, Kevin Hornsby, and Charles Archer break down the key political, macro, and market stories shaping the week.The team discusses rising political pressure in the UK, US monetary policy uncertainty, interest rate expectations, and the impact these themes are having across equities, commodities, and crypto markets.The show features in-depth interviews with Zenith Energy, covering progress across solar, uranium, and strategic energy assets in Europe, and Hamak Strategy, exploring its hybrid approach to West African gold exploration alongside a Bitcoin and physical gold treasury strategy.The episode wraps up with movers and shakers from the markets, standout small-cap performances, commentary on gold, silver, Bitcoin, and mining equities, plus a look ahead to the key trends and catalysts investors are watching.00:00 - 00:10:21 Weekly News Roundup00:10:21 #ZEN Interview00:34:14 #HAMA Interview00:57:59 #ORM 00:58:14 #IMC00:59:24 #TUN 01:03:39 #MILA 01:05:22 #ATN 01:06:01 #SWC 01:14:33 #DGQ 01:19:17 #UOG 01:22:03 #ALRT 01:22:55 #XTR Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
Auto-generated transcript: Bismillahirrahmanirrahim. Alhamdulillahi Rabbil Alameen. Wasalatu wasalamu ala ashrafil anbiya wal mursaleen. Muhammadur Rasulullah sallallahu alayhi wa ala alihi wa sahbihi wa sallam. Tasliman kathiran kathiran. Hama baadu, my brothers and sisters, Allah SWT when He created Azam alayhi salam, before He created Azam alayhi salam, Allah SWT said, to the malaika, inni ja’ilun… Continue reading King or Khalifa
When a joke could get you killed, should you say it anyway? A group of Syrian comedians test the limits of their newfound freedom, a year after the fall of the brutal Assad regime. Visit thisamericanlife.org/lifepartners to sign up for our premium subscription.Prologue: Under the dictatorship of Bashar al-Assad, comedian Sharief Homsi knew which jokes were too dangerous to say on stage. Now that Syria is under the control of a new government, Sharief and the other comedians of “Styria” set out on a national tour to see how far their comedy can go in this new Syria. (6 minutes)Act One: The comedians test out risky material and get big laughs on early tour dates. It's going smoothly until they find out that their show scheduled in the conservative city of Hama is in danger of being cancelled. (13 minutes)Act Two: The comedians go to battle with local officials. (18 minutes)Act Three: The comedians try everything they can think of to keep their shows from being cancelled. (20 minutes)Transcripts are available at thisamericanlife.orgThis American Life privacy policy.Learn more about sponsor message choices.
In this episode of The Sunday Roast, Phil Carroll and Kevin Hornsby cover the key market headlines shaping the week, from rising geopolitical tensions and shifting currency dynamics to record moves in gold, silver and Bitcoin.The show features in-depth interviews with Scott Ellam (Connecting Excellence), Paul Elliott (Active Energy) , and Leon Coetzer (Jubilee Metals) , discussing Bitcoin treasury strategies, energy infrastructure, and the evolving copper market.The episode wraps up with movers and shakers from the markets, standout small-cap performances, and a look at commodities, crypto, and global macro trends driving investor sentiment.00:00 - 00:07:19 Weekly News Roundup 00:07:19 #XCE Interview00:48:39 #AEG Interview01:04:40 #JLP Interview01:22:11 #BHL01:23:56 #ORCP 01:25:20 #COIN 01:27:16 #MKA 01:32:01 #ATN 01:33:59 #HAMA 01:34:55 3A's #AJAX #AEG #ASTR Disclaimer & Declaration of InterestThis podcast may contain paid promotions, including but not limited to sponsorships, endorsements, or affiliate partnerships. The information, investment views, and recommendations provided are for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as a solicitation to buy or sell any financial products related to the companies discussed. Any opinions or comments are made to the best of the knowledge and belief of the commentators; however, no responsibility is accepted for actions based on such opinions or comments. The commentators may or may not hold investments in the companies under discussion. Listeners are encouraged to perform their own research and consult with a licensed professional before making any financial decisions based on the content of this podcast.
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.
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.
The Gemara raises two difficulties with the conclusion that earthenware vessels can be koshered by placing fire inside them. First, why does the Torah command that earthenware vessels in which sanctified meat was cooked must be broken, if they could simply be put into a kiln? The answer given is that kilns could not be used in Jerusalem, as they would blacken the walls and mar the beauty of the city. Second, why were the Temple ovens made of metal if earthenware ovens could have been used and koshered? The assumption behind this question is flawed, since the ovens needed to serve as a sanctified vessel in certain cases (such as the two loaves on Shavuot and the showbread), and sanctified vessels cannot be made of earthenware. Rav Yitzchak bar Yehuda left the study hall of Rami bar Hama and joined that of Rav Sheshet. Rami bar Hama was offended, assuming Rav Yitzchak sought greater honor. Rav Yitzchak explained that he had not received satisfactory answers from Rami bar Hama, who relied on logical reasoning rather than tannaitic sources. Rami bar Hama challenged Rav Yitzchak to send him a question, promising to answer with a tannaitic source. Rav Yitzchak asked about merika and shtifa (scouring and rinsing) of a vessel in which only part was used for cooking sacrificial items: does the entire vessel require cleansing, or only the part that was used? Rami bar Hama answered logically that only the part used requires cleansing, as in the case of blood on clothing. Rav Yitzchak rejected this reasoning and cited a braita proving the opposite, thereby refuting Rami bar Hama completely. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the requirement of merika and shtifa applies to both kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim, or only to kodshei kodashim. From where do they derive this distinction? They both agree that merika and shtifa do not apply to truma. The Gemara raises a challenge to this from a braita, and three answers are offered.
More on how absorbed flavors are to be removed from earthenware - now recognizing that smashing the earthenware would be a problem in Jerusalem. That is, the holy city had certain cautions against garbage and trash piles, which meant that the debris from the Temple needed to be handled in specific ways, depending on its composition. Also, the learning style of Rami bar Hama and Rav Sheshet, as presented by Rabbi Yitzhak b"r Yehudah. R. Yitzhak wants proofs from sources, not from logic, and even when Rami bar Hama sets out to use tannaitic sources to answer R. Yitzhak's question (about the impurity of garments and vessels), he defaults to logic.
The Gemara raises two difficulties with the conclusion that earthenware vessels can be koshered by placing fire inside them. First, why does the Torah command that earthenware vessels in which sanctified meat was cooked must be broken, if they could simply be put into a kiln? The answer given is that kilns could not be used in Jerusalem, as they would blacken the walls and mar the beauty of the city. Second, why were the Temple ovens made of metal if earthenware ovens could have been used and koshered? The assumption behind this question is flawed, since the ovens needed to serve as a sanctified vessel in certain cases (such as the two loaves on Shavuot and the showbread), and sanctified vessels cannot be made of earthenware. Rav Yitzchak bar Yehuda left the study hall of Rami bar Hama and joined that of Rav Sheshet. Rami bar Hama was offended, assuming Rav Yitzchak sought greater honor. Rav Yitzchak explained that he had not received satisfactory answers from Rami bar Hama, who relied on logical reasoning rather than tannaitic sources. Rami bar Hama challenged Rav Yitzchak to send him a question, promising to answer with a tannaitic source. Rav Yitzchak asked about merika and shtifa (scouring and rinsing) of a vessel in which only part was used for cooking sacrificial items: does the entire vessel require cleansing, or only the part that was used? Rami bar Hama answered logically that only the part used requires cleansing, as in the case of blood on clothing. Rav Yitzchak rejected this reasoning and cited a braita proving the opposite, thereby refuting Rami bar Hama completely. Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon disagree about whether the requirement of merika and shtifa applies to both kodshei kodashim and kodashim kalim, or only to kodshei kodashim. From where do they derive this distinction? They both agree that merika and shtifa do not apply to truma. The Gemara raises a challenge to this from a braita, and three answers are offered.
Study Guide Rami bar Hama asks Rav Chisda whether blood that splashes onto a garment already impure requires laundering. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua explains that the question hinges on whether laundering is unnecessary only when impurity and disqualification occur sequentially, or even when they occur simultaneously. Rav Chisda connects the issue to a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis regarding the status of mei chatat that became impure, as interpreted by Abaye. To clarify Abaye's understanding, the Gemara presents a broader disagreement among Raba, Abaye, and Rava about the nature of the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis. A braita teaches that only blood fit for sprinkling requires laundering, excluding blood already disqualified. Rabbi Akiva rules that blood which had a moment of fitness and was later disqualified does require laundering, while Rabbi Shimon maintains that disqualified blood never requires it. The Mishna rules that blood splashed from the neck of the animal, or from the altar's corner or base, does not require laundering, nor does blood spilled on the floor and later gathered, since only blood received in a vessel and fit for sprinkling requires laundering. Two braitot are cited to demonstrate how these laws are derived from verses in the Torah. The Gemara further clarifies that the requirement of being "capable of sprinkling" excludes cases where less than the requisite measure was received in each vessel. Rava explains that this principle is rooted in a drasha on the verse in Vayikra 4:6. After presenting several drashot on the different words of that verse, the Gemara analyzes them both in relation to one another - explaining why each was necessary - and in relation to other statements. The Mishna continues with blood splashed on the hide: before flaying it does not require laundering, but after flaying it does. Rabbi Elazar limits laundering to the place of the blood and only where the material is susceptible to impurity. A braita extends laundering obligations to garments, sackcloth, and hides, and specifies that laundering, breaking of earthenware vessels, and rinsing of copper vessels must all be performed in a sacred place. Laundering is a stringency unique to the sin offering compared to other kodshei kodashim.
Study Guide Rami bar Hama asks Rav Chisda whether blood that splashes onto a garment already impure requires laundering. Rav Huna son of Rav Yehoshua explains that the question hinges on whether laundering is unnecessary only when impurity and disqualification occur sequentially, or even when they occur simultaneously. Rav Chisda connects the issue to a dispute between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis regarding the status of mei chatat that became impure, as interpreted by Abaye. To clarify Abaye's understanding, the Gemara presents a broader disagreement among Raba, Abaye, and Rava about the nature of the disagreement between Rabbi Elazar and the rabbis. A braita teaches that only blood fit for sprinkling requires laundering, excluding blood already disqualified. Rabbi Akiva rules that blood which had a moment of fitness and was later disqualified does require laundering, while Rabbi Shimon maintains that disqualified blood never requires it. The Mishna rules that blood splashed from the neck of the animal, or from the altar's corner or base, does not require laundering, nor does blood spilled on the floor and later gathered, since only blood received in a vessel and fit for sprinkling requires laundering. Two braitot are cited to demonstrate how these laws are derived from verses in the Torah. The Gemara further clarifies that the requirement of being "capable of sprinkling" excludes cases where less than the requisite measure was received in each vessel. Rava explains that this principle is rooted in a drasha on the verse in Vayikra 4:6. After presenting several drashot on the different words of that verse, the Gemara analyzes them both in relation to one another - explaining why each was necessary - and in relation to other statements. The Mishna continues with blood splashed on the hide: before flaying it does not require laundering, but after flaying it does. Rabbi Elazar limits laundering to the place of the blood and only where the material is susceptible to impurity. A braita extends laundering obligations to garments, sackcloth, and hides, and specifies that laundering, breaking of earthenware vessels, and rinsing of copper vessels must all be performed in a sacred place. Laundering is a stringency unique to the sin offering compared to other kodshei kodashim.
If sacrifices of the same type become intermingled, the Mishna rules that they are offered for "whichever owner they belong to." However, in cases where smicha is required, how can the sacrifice be brought, since one cannot perform smicha on another's offering? Rav Yosef explains that the Mishna must be referring to women, who are not obligated in smicha. Men's sacrifices, by contrast, would not be offered; instead, they would be left to graze until they developed a blemish and then sold, with new animals purchased for the altar. Abaye raises a difficulty from a braita that discusses public and individual sacrifices that became mixed both before and after slaughter and were nevertheless offered. Since public sacrifices are brought by men, the braita must also be referring to individual sacrifices brought by men. Rava resolves this by reinterpreting the braita, noting a difficulty in its plain reading. He explains that it refers only to a case where the blood of the animals was mixed after slaughter, and not to intermingling of live animals. In the braita cited by Abaye, Rebbi rules that if the blood of two animals was mixed in one cup, the kohen may combine the sprinkling for both sacrifices, but only if there is enough blood for each. A difficulty is raised against Rebbi from another braita in which he quotes Rabbi Eliezer regarding the red heifer purification waters, where no minimum amount is required for sprinkling. The same should apply to blood. Two answers are offered: either the purification waters differ from blood, or Rebbi was not stating his own view but merely quoting Rabbi Eliezer. Rami bar Hama poses two questions concerning a firstborn animal that became blemished. Rabbi Yosi bar Zevida attempts to answer from the Mishna about firstborns intermingled with other sacrifices, but his answer is rejected. The Mishna states that only sin and guilt offerings cannot be intermingled, since their differences are identifiable. The Gemara considers whether other offerings might also fall into this category, but all such suggestions are rejected. If a guilt offering becomes mixed with a peace offering, they are offered according to the stricter requirements of the two. This could potentially cause sanctified items to be disqualified. Rabbi Shimon does not have an issue with this, but the rabbis disagree and do not allow it. Rava limits Rabbi Shimon's ruling to a post facto situation and does not permit it ab initio.
If sacrifices of the same type become intermingled, the Mishna rules that they are offered for "whichever owner they belong to." However, in cases where smicha is required, how can the sacrifice be brought, since one cannot perform smicha on another's offering? Rav Yosef explains that the Mishna must be referring to women, who are not obligated in smicha. Men's sacrifices, by contrast, would not be offered; instead, they would be left to graze until they developed a blemish and then sold, with new animals purchased for the altar. Abaye raises a difficulty from a braita that discusses public and individual sacrifices that became mixed both before and after slaughter and were nevertheless offered. Since public sacrifices are brought by men, the braita must also be referring to individual sacrifices brought by men. Rava resolves this by reinterpreting the braita, noting a difficulty in its plain reading. He explains that it refers only to a case where the blood of the animals was mixed after slaughter, and not to intermingling of live animals. In the braita cited by Abaye, Rebbi rules that if the blood of two animals was mixed in one cup, the kohen may combine the sprinkling for both sacrifices, but only if there is enough blood for each. A difficulty is raised against Rebbi from another braita in which he quotes Rabbi Eliezer regarding the red heifer purification waters, where no minimum amount is required for sprinkling. The same should apply to blood. Two answers are offered: either the purification waters differ from blood, or Rebbi was not stating his own view but merely quoting Rabbi Eliezer. Rami bar Hama poses two questions concerning a firstborn animal that became blemished. Rabbi Yosi bar Zevida attempts to answer from the Mishna about firstborns intermingled with other sacrifices, but his answer is rejected. The Mishna states that only sin and guilt offerings cannot be intermingled, since their differences are identifiable. The Gemara considers whether other offerings might also fall into this category, but all such suggestions are rejected. If a guilt offering becomes mixed with a peace offering, they are offered according to the stricter requirements of the two. This could potentially cause sanctified items to be disqualified. Rabbi Shimon does not have an issue with this, but the rabbis disagree and do not allow it. Rava limits Rabbi Shimon's ruling to a post facto situation and does not permit it ab initio.
Maher ist Zahnarzt und lebt seit elf Jahren in Deutschland. Er ist 2014 aus Syrien geflüchtet, hat in Münster studiert und lebt und arbeitet dort mittlerweile – noch. Denn Maher denkt darüber nach, ob er Deutschland irgendwann wieder verlassen muss. NDR-Journalist Sulaiman Tadmory hat Maher und andere Syrischstämmige getroffen, um mit ihnen über die aktuelle politische Lage zu sprechen. Sulaiman ist selbst Syrer und erzählt in dieser besonderen 11KM-Folge vom Gefühl, nicht mehr willkommen zu sein und von einer hitzigen Debatte, in der die Betroffenen kaum zu Wort kommen. Hier geht's zu Sulaimans Film “Zeit zu gehen? Deutschland, Syrien und ich”: https://www.ardmediathek.de/video/zeit-zu-gehen-deutschland-syrien-und-ich/zeit-zu-gehen-deutschland-syrien-und-ich/ndr/Y3JpZDovL25kci5kZS80YjIyYzJlOC1mMTgzLTQ2ZDgtOTA0Yy1lNDhhMzJmMTIwZmFfZ2FuemVTZW5kdW5n Hier geht's zu “WDR5 Politikum – der Meinungspodcast”, unserem Podcast-Tipp: http://www.wdr.de/k/Politikum-Podcast-Picker Diese und viele weitere Folgen von 11KM findet ihr überall da, wo es Podcasts gibt, auch hier in der ARD Audiothek: https://www.ardaudiothek.de/sendung/11km-der-tagesschau-podcast/12200383/ An dieser Folge waren beteiligt: Folgenautor: Lukas Waschbüsch Mitarbeit: Niklas Münch Host: David Krause Produktion: Regina Staerke, Christiane Gerheuser-Kamp, Lisa Krumme und Marie-Noelle Svihla Planung: Caspar von Au und Hardy Funk Distribution: Kerstin Ammermann Redaktionsleitung: Fumiko Lipp und Nicole Dienemann 11KM: der tagesschau-Podcast wird produziert von BR24 und NDR Info. Die redaktionelle Verantwortung für diese Episode liegt beim NDR.
Fluent Fiction - Hebrew: Bridging Tradition and Innovation at the Kotel HaMa'aravi Find the full episode transcript, vocabulary words, and more:fluentfiction.com/he/episode/2025-11-09-23-34-02-he Story Transcript:He: הערב בכותל המערבי היה מרהיב.En: The evening at the Kotel HaMa'aravi was spectacular.He: האוויר היה מלא בריחות סתיו והאורות של חג החנוכה הבהיקו באורח קסום.En: The air was filled with the scents of autumn, and the lights of Hanukkah shone in a magical manner.He: אבני הכותל ניצבו בגאון, כמו שומרים אילמים של המסורת וההיסטוריה.En: The stones of the Kotel stood proudly, like silent guardians of tradition and history.He: בפינה שקטה ליד הכותל, ישבו שלושה חברים: אריאל, תמר ואליאור.En: In a quiet corner near the Kotel, three friends sat: Ariel, Tamar, and Elior.He: הם הגיעו לכאן לדיון חשוב על פרויקט שימור מורשת.En: They had come here for an important discussion about a heritage preservation project.He: אריאל, היסטוריון נלהב, נשם עמוק והתחיל לדבר.En: Ariel, an enthusiastic historian, took a deep breath and began to speak.He: הוא רצה לשכנע אותם בתוכניתו החדשנית לשימור הכותל, תוכנית שאיחדה קדמה ומסורת באופן ייחודי.En: He wanted to convince them of his innovative plan for preserving the Kotel, a plan that uniquely united progress and tradition.He: תמר, מנהלת הפרויקט, הנהנה להקשיב אך הייתה ספקנית.En: Tamar, the project manager, enjoyed listening but was skeptical.He: "איך זה יעבוד בפועל, אריאל?En: "How will this work in practice, Ariel?"He: " היא שאלה.En: she asked.He: "אנחנו צריכים פתרונות פרקטיים.En: "We need practical solutions."He: "אליאור, האדריכל הצעיר, היסס.En: Elior, the young architect, hesitated.He: הוא אהב חידושים אך חשש לפגוע במסורת.En: He loved innovations but feared compromising tradition.He: "אני אוהב את הרעיון שלך," הוא התחיל לומר, "אבל חשוב לי לדעת איך אנחנו נשארים נאמנים למקום הזה.En: "I like your idea," he began to say, "but it's important to me that we remain true to this place."He: "אריאל הבין שהוא חייב לשנות את הגישה.En: Ariel understood he had to change his approach.He: במשך שבוע הוא עבד על תיקונים ותוספות לתוכנית, תוך שילוב רעיונות מאליאור לשמירה על האיזון בין מסורת לחדשנות.En: For a week, he worked on amendments and additions to the plan, incorporating ideas from Elior to maintain the balance between tradition and innovation.He: ביום הפגישה, הוא הציג את התוכנית החדשה.En: On the day of the meeting, he presented the revised plan.He: הוא הדגיש כיצד תשתמש בטכנולוגיה חדשה כדי להגן על הכותל ולשמר את הפאר ההיסטורי שלו.En: He emphasized how it would use new technology to protect the Kotel and preserve its historical grandeur.He: "הרעיון שלנו הוא לכבד את המסורת בעזרת פתרונות מודרניים," הוא אמר, עיניו נוצצות מתשוקה.En: "Our idea is to honor the tradition with modern solutions," he said, his eyes sparkling with passion.He: תמר נשארה שקטה לרגע.En: Tamar remained silent for a moment.He: היא הביטה באריאל ואחר כך באליאור.En: She looked at Ariel and then at Elior.He: משהו בה השתכנע.En: Something in her was convinced.He: "זה נשמע טוב מאוד, למה לא נתחיל מיד?En: "That sounds very good, why don't we start right away?"He: " היא אמרה, מחייכת.En: she said, smiling.He: אליאור גם התלהב מהשינוי והציע עזרה בהיבטים העיצוביים.En: Elior was also excited about the change and offered help with the design aspects.He: באופן זה, הצעתו של אריאל התקבלה פה אחד.En: In this way, Ariel's proposal was unanimously accepted.He: הוא חש רגיעה עמוקה, והבין שחשיבות שיתוף הפעולה והקשבה לרעיונות של אחרים היא גדולה בתהליך יצירת החדש.En: He felt a deep sense of relief and understood the great importance of collaboration and listening to others' ideas in the process of creating the new.He: כשהם יצאו מהפגישה, הכותל המשיך להאיר את הלילה, ונראה כי אריאל זכה לא רק בפרויקט, אלא גם באמונה חדשה ביכולותיו ובחזונו.En: As they left the meeting, the Kotel continued to light up the night, and it seemed that Ariel had gained not only a project but also a new belief in his abilities and vision. Vocabulary Words:spectacular: מרהיבscents: ריחותmagical: קסוםguardians: שומריםheritage: מורשתpreservation: שימורhistorian: היסטוריוןenthusiastic: נלהבinnovative: חדשניתskeptical: ספקניתarchitect: אדריכלcompromising: לפגועamendments: תיקוניםadditions: תוספותincorporating: שילובbalance: איזוןemphasized: הדגישgrandeur: פארhonor: לכבדunanimously: פה אחדrelief: רגיעהcollaboration: שיתוף פעולהconvinced: השתכנעdesign: עיצובייםaspects: היבטיםvision: חזוןunique: ייחודיpassion: תשוקהpractical: פרקטייםlistening: הקשבהBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/fluent-fiction-hebrew--5818690/support.
The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod. The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is a base, i.e., not on the southeast corner, since the base did not extend there. A difficulty on that suggestion is drawn from the verse's wording. The verse states "to the base of the altar of the olah," which suggests relevance to all sacrifices on the outer altar rather than only to the olah. But the sin offering, which is placed on the outer altar, is positioned on all four corners and not limited to the three corners where there is a base. If the verse had intended the latter ruling, it should have been phrased "to the base of the olah," referring specifically to the burnt offering where that limitation would apply. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the unique inclusion of the word "altar" in the verse: it teaches that when blood is spilled on the base, it must be spilled on the roof of the base (top flat surface) and not on the wall of the base. With this reading, the subsequent lines of the braita, where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva each say the law could have been derived by a kal va'chomer are reread including mention of the roof of the base. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva appear to assert the same logical argument using slightly different wording. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Papa propose possible distinctions between their positions. Rav Ada argues that because Rabbi Akiva used more extended language about the remainder of the blood, that it "does not atone" and "does not come for atonement purposes," Rabbi Akiva must regard pouring the remainder as nonessential. Rabbi Yishmael, having said only "it doesn't atone," must hold that pouring the remainder is essential. Rav Papa rejects this reading, maintaining that no one posits an obligation to pour the remainder of the blood. He narrows the difference between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to the specific case of the bird sin offering: whether mitzui, squeezing out the remainder of the blood and placing it directly on the wall of the altar while squeezing, is essential. Rav Papa understands Rabbi Yishmael to require mitzui, while Rabbi Akiva does not. A braita is then cited to support Rav Papa, showing that Rabbi Yishmael holds pouring the remainder is not essential. A difficulty is raised against Rav Papa's position, but the Gemara resolves it. Rami bar Hama introduces a tana who maintains that for sin offerings whose blood is placed on the inner altar, pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is essential; Rava, however, rejects this understanding of the braita and its conclusion. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dispute whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva actually differ on the question of whether the remainder of the blood for inner sin offerings is essential.
The braita in Zevachim 51 extrapolates from the third mention (by the nasi) of the base of the altar that for all sacrifices on the outer altar the remainder of the blood is poured on the base, the yesod. The braita then raises a question: perhaps the extrapolation should be different — that the sprinkling of sacrificial blood on the outer altar must be performed only on the sides where there is a base, i.e., not on the southeast corner, since the base did not extend there. A difficulty on that suggestion is drawn from the verse's wording. The verse states "to the base of the altar of the olah," which suggests relevance to all sacrifices on the outer altar rather than only to the olah. But the sin offering, which is placed on the outer altar, is positioned on all four corners and not limited to the three corners where there is a base. If the verse had intended the latter ruling, it should have been phrased "to the base of the olah," referring specifically to the burnt offering where that limitation would apply. The Gemara resolves this difficulty by explaining the unique inclusion of the word "altar" in the verse: it teaches that when blood is spilled on the base, it must be spilled on the roof of the base (top flat surface) and not on the wall of the base. With this reading, the subsequent lines of the braita, where Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva each say the law could have been derived by a kal va'chomer are reread including mention of the roof of the base. Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva appear to assert the same logical argument using slightly different wording. Rav Ada bar Ahava and Rav Papa propose possible distinctions between their positions. Rav Ada argues that because Rabbi Akiva used more extended language about the remainder of the blood, that it "does not atone" and "does not come for atonement purposes," Rabbi Akiva must regard pouring the remainder as nonessential. Rabbi Yishmael, having said only "it doesn't atone," must hold that pouring the remainder is essential. Rav Papa rejects this reading, maintaining that no one posits an obligation to pour the remainder of the blood. He narrows the difference between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva to the specific case of the bird sin offering: whether mitzui, squeezing out the remainder of the blood and placing it directly on the wall of the altar while squeezing, is essential. Rav Papa understands Rabbi Yishmael to require mitzui, while Rabbi Akiva does not. A braita is then cited to support Rav Papa, showing that Rabbi Yishmael holds pouring the remainder is not essential. A difficulty is raised against Rav Papa's position, but the Gemara resolves it. Rami bar Hama introduces a tana who maintains that for sin offerings whose blood is placed on the inner altar, pouring the remainder of the blood on the base of the altar is essential; Rava, however, rejects this understanding of the braita and its conclusion. Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi dispute whether Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Akiva actually differ on the question of whether the remainder of the blood for inner sin offerings is essential.
Kinda Hanna is a Syrian actress, born on December 16, 1984, in Hama, Syria. She graduated from the Higher Institute of Dramatic Arts in Damascus in 2006 and started her professional acting career around 2004–2006. She gained widespread recognition in the popular TV series Bab Al‑Hara, which helped establish her as one of the prominent faces of Syrian drama. Over the years she has appeared in a variety of television productions and films, blending mainstream appeal with strong dramatic moments.In her personal life, she married Naji Tu'mi in 2013 and is a mother to three children, including twins born around 2014. Her public persona is often described as warm and relatable, and she is sometimes nicknamed “the Cinderella of the Syrian screen” in reference to her charm and rise in the industry. #hikmatwehbipodcast #podcast#arabicpodcast #kindahanna#wstudiodxbحكمت_وهبي#حكمت_وهبي_بودكاست#
President Donald Trump & Secretary of State Marco Rubio talk about Israel & Hamas agreeing to a pause in their two-year-old war and the release of hostages held by Hama in exchange for Palestinian prisoners, what President Trump calls Phase One of his Gaza ceasefire plan; Federal court hearings today challenging President Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to Portland, Oregon and Chicago, the president says, to protect federal immigration authorities from threats by protesters; New York Attorney General Letitia James is reportedly indicted by a federal grand jury on one count of bank fraud. She writes on X, "This is nothing more than a continuation of the president's desperate weaponization of our justice system." Day 9 of the federal government shutdown and Senate votes down for a seventh time Republican and Democratic proposals for short-term funding extensions; Federal Reserve Board Member Michael Barr urges caution on any further interest rate cuts, citing the risks of inflation from President Trump's tariffs; former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says she believes the Trump administration is preparing for 'some kind of military action' against Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Renewable energy overtook coal as the world's leading source of electricity for the first time, with countries like Sri Lanka already running on about 50% renewables. With just four major economies creating nearly two thirds of global electricity demand, the race to decarbonise is accelerating. But who’s leading the charge and how does Australia stack up? In this episode of The Briefing, Helen Smith is joined by Dr Reihana Mohideen, an electrical engineer and principal advisor from the University of Melbourne, who explains why these renewable energy moves aren’t about climate change and what it means for our net zero targets. Afternoon headlines: Israel and Hama sign off on first phase of US Gaza peace plan, Google blocks Gov STI awareness ads labelling them as ‘adult content’ and an Australian wins Nobel Prize for Chemistry Further listening: Trump's Nobel Peace Prize race Follow The Briefing: TikTok: @thebriefingpodInstagram: @thebriefingpodcast YouTube: @TheBriefingPodcastFacebook: @LiSTNR Newsroom See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.
Several difficulties are raised against the conclusion that the elders of the South must hold that the Paschal sacrifice may be brought on behalf of someone who is impure from contact with the dead. After presenting a challenge based on a question posed by Rami bar Hama, the Gemara concludes that Rami bar Hama clearly disagrees with the elders of the South. He maintains that the Paschal sacrifice cannot be brought for someone who is impure, and if it is, the offering is disqualified. A baraita is cited as a challenge to Rami bar Hama’s position, but the difficulty is ultimately resolved. Notably, there are two different versions of this challenge. Additionally, the Gemara discusses the case of a kohen who sits while performing the sacrificial rites. In such a case, the sacrifice is disqualified. The source for this ruling is examined, and two textual proofs are brought to support it.
For our final season, we're covering the short life of Martin Goodman's Atlas/Seaboard comics by reviewing all the debut issues from their line. We're joined by Jared from the SWORDS & SCROLLS podcast to talk about WULF THE BARBARIAN, written and drawn by LARRY HAMA with inks by KLAUS JANSON. Hama created a character who's a "barbarian" in name only. "Wulf the Warrior" would have been a better name, but we suspect the shot-callers were chasing Conan's audience. You can read all 4 issues here: https://archive.org/details/wulf-the-barbarian-complete/Wulf%20The%20Barbarian%2001// Watch it on YouTube: https://youtu.be/30JuVrTD7f0 Check out Swords & Scrolls: https://www.goodpencil.com/pod/blog/series/swordsandscrolls/ SUPPORT THE SHOW: https://www.patreon.com/BronzeAgeMonsters THREADLESS SHOP: https://bronzeagemonsters.threadless.com/ JOIN US ON OUR DISCORD SERVER: https://discord.gg/wdXKUzpEh7
This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.
This week's learning is sponsored by Helen Danczak. "My dear Uncle Phil passed on August 27 with family at hand. He was the kind of uncle that the kids (of all ages) gravitated to. I am not alone in saying he was my favorite uncle. He is missed. May his neshama have an aliyah." Today's daf is sponsored by Audrey Levant in honor of Deborah Dickson. "Happy birthday to Hadran’s newest wonderful addition to the team. I’m excited to start another (school) year of learning with you, my friend!” The Mishna teaches that if the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and an individual follows, the individual does not have to bring a sin offering. However, the Gemara will later explain that this is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, but the rabbis disagree and obligate the individual. If the Beit Din teaches an erroneous ruling and a judge or student who has reached a stage of one who can issue halakhic rulings realizes they have made a mistake but follows their ruling anyway, he is obligated to bring a sin offering. If the court issues an erroneous ruling and the majority of the community follow it, there is an obligation to bring a special sacrifice called ‘the bull offering of an unwitting communal sin (par he’elem davar shel tzibur). Shmuel and Rav Dimi disagree about the language that must be used by the court for it to be considered “an erroneous ruling of the court.” Three sources are brought to support Rav Dimi’s position. In a second version of the debate, they switch positions, and the sources are raised as difficulties against Rav Dimi. The Mishna described the actions of the individual who is exempt when sinning by following an erroneous ruling of the court using the words “shogeg al pihem, unwitting by their words.” In two different versions of Rava’s explanation of this term, it either refers to two different cases or to one. If it refers to two, it would include an exemption in an additional case – if the court ruled by mistake that a piece of forbidden fat was permitted, and the individual meant to eat a piece of permitted fat, but accidentally ate the piece that the court permitted. Even though Rava had an answer to that question (obligated or exempt, depending on the different versions of Rava’s explanation), Rami bar Hama asked the same question and did not know the answer. Again, in two different versions, Rava answers the question by explaining the term in the Mishna. However, Rami bar Hama rejects his answer as the term is ambiguous. The Mishna lists various ways in which the individual or a judge/student can potentially follow a ruling of the court. What is the significance of the order in each case? How is a “teacher capable of issuing halakhic rulings" defined, and why was it necessary to include this category in addition to that of a judge? The Gemara quotes two braitot, one explaining the source for Rabbi Yehuda’s position in the Mishna, exempting an individual who follows the court, and the other explaining the source for the rabbis' dissenting opinion obligating an individual who follows the court. The latter braita is complicated to understand, and the Gemara irons out its meaning and shows how it reflects the rabbis' position.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday approved I.D.F. plans to capture Hamas's major stronghold of Gaza City. Hurricane Erin is expected to weaken throughout the day as it moves further out to sea but dangerous rip currents will conti
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday approved I.D.F. plans to capture Hamas's major stronghold of Gaza City. Hurricane Erin is expected to weaken throughout the day as it moves further out to sea but dangerous rip currents will conti
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday approved I.D.F. plans to capture Hamas's major stronghold of Gaza City. Hurricane Erin is expected to weaken throughout the day as it moves further out to sea but dangerous rip currents will conti
President Donald Trump is right to believe that Iran is in a historically vulnerable position right now. The Assad regime is kaput. Hezbollah's effectiveness has been dramatically reduced since Oct. 7. Hama is living underground among the rubble of Gaza. However, even with a maximum pressure campaign, oil embargoes, domestic instability, two things will never change: You can't trust a word that comes out of the Iranian regime's mouth, and their legitimacy hinges on acquiring nuclear weapons, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words:” “The pressure is all on Iran. Militarily. Diplomatically. Economically. Socially. Culturally. What do I mean by that? Culturally, there is about 30% to 40% of the country are non-Farsi Persian speakers. And they're very restive, angry. Power outages. The regime is unpopular. It's diverted billions of dollars to these terrorist appendages that now didn't pay off, that they're defunct. “And so, Donald Trump thinks that he, with this maximum pressure, putting this crushing oil embargo—which by the way, Joe Biden lifted—that he can bring them to negotiations one last time. “Personally, I don't think he can. Nothing that that regime has ever said is accurate. Nobody in the MAGA movement wants an optional war in the Middle East. But they will have nuclear weapons, perhaps in a year. So, what is the likely scenario?”
President Donald Trump is right to believe that Iran is in a historically vulnerable position right now. The Assad regime is kaput. Hezbollah's effectiveness has been dramatically reduced since Oct. 7. Hama is living underground among the rubble of Gaza. However, even with a maximum pressure campaign, oil embargoes, domestic instability, two things will never […]
President Donald Trump is right to believe that Iran is in a historically vulnerable position right now. The Assad regime is kaput. Hezbollah's effectiveness has been dramatically reduced since Oct. 7. Hama is living underground among the rubble of Gaza. However, even with a maximum pressure campaign, oil embargoes, domestic instability, two things will never […]
President Donald Trump is right to believe that Iran is in a historically vulnerable position right now. The Assad regime is kaput. Hezbollah's effectiveness has been dramatically reduced since Oct. 7. Hama is living underground among the rubble of Gaza. However, even with a maximum pressure campaign, oil embargoes, domestic instability, two things will never […]
Early this month, Harvard Law School students participated in a “Wikipedia Edit-A-Thon” workshop. Students were asked to "gather data to edit the Wikipedia pages of Big Law firms to reflect cases they have recently argued," according to The Washington Free Beacon. What actually happened? Several students singled out and warped the Wikipedia pages of big law firms who previously that they would cut back recruitment from universities that did not curb the spread of anti-Semitism on-campus following the Oct. 7 Hama terror attacks. What are we getting at? For decades, America's elite law schools have degraded their standards in the pursuit of social justice and have become wholly dependent on foreign money. Now, it's finally catching up to them, argues Victor Davis Hanson on today's edition of “Victor Davis Hanson: In His Own Words.”
The Syrian army says it's withdrawn from the city of Hama after intense clashes. Also: health workers in Sierra Leone will be among the first to receive an Ebola vaccine, as part of a nationwide campaign.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
