Podcasts about hayot

Today is the song of Hayot HaSadeh which we'll call the wild animals of the field. They say, Blessed is the One that does good for me and for others. Rav Chaim Kanievsky explains that Hayot HaSadeh are animals that damage like it says in Devarim 7, 22, " Lest the wild animals of the field overcome you," and in Vayikra 26, 22, in the curses " I will send against you the Hayat HaSadeh." Normally, people try to protect animals, even some wild ones. But wild animals that are out to destroy, people try constantly to kill and destroy them, and therefore they should have been long extinct. Like Rashi in Bereshit 1,22 says, " The Hayot need a special that they shouldn't be wiped out, " however Hashem didn't want to bless them because the snake was amongst them. Nonetheless, Hashem gives special Hashgacha to each of the species so they're not extinct, especially the ones that are most likely to become extinct. That is why they sing God is Good to us and to others . There is another explanation of why the wild animals of the field say God is good to us and to others. In Shemot 23,11 where it discusses the year of Shemitah and how you have to leave all the fruit outside, it says, let the poor eat it, and " Let the rest of it be eaten by the Hayat HaSadeh." Which means the Hayat HaSadeh are partnering with each other. It's a Halacha in Shulchan Aruch that we say HaTov/its for me, V'HaMetiv/and its good for others. When do we say this? I once heard Rav Moshe Feinstein apply this as follows (I think it's in Igrot Moshe ): A person who buys a car would technically say Shehechiyanu , as it's like a new vessel-if it's a private car. But if you buy a car for your family, then you say HaTov, He's good to me, V'Hametiv/He's good to others. That's one of the times HaTov VHaMetiv is used. And since the wild animals of the field, when they go out and scavenge, understand that they are sharing with others (imagine a possum and weasel going into your garbage), they say HaTov, God is good to me, V'Hetiv/and He's good to others. They're sharing in the wealth. That is how they survive, because they're scavengers. They don't always have someone feeding them, they eat from the overflow. I heard a beautiful, fascinating explanation from Rabbi Daniel Glatstein, citing Rav Moshe Shapiro the famed Baal Machsheva who lived in Yerushalayim until a few years ago. The Gemara in Taanit 31A tells us that one of the things that happened in Tu B'Av, one of the happiest days, is that the bodies of Beitar were able to be buried. Beitar was a large city where hundreds of thousands of people were killed, and for years their bodies were exposed and not buried, but God made a miracle and miraculously the bodies did not rot. They eventually were buried. And therefore it says on them, HaTov God is good that they didn't rot, VeHaMetiv/and He's further good that they ended up getting buried. This shows God's endearment for Jewish people. And now for the beautiful thought: Do you ever wonder why there are no piles of dead elephants in the fields? Or dead raccoons in the forest, or anything else, all over the place? We discussed this in the past, when we talked about how vultures are the sanitation department of creation. They come and they clean everything up and they have special beaks with the ability to crack bones. But even after the vultures come and take everything apart, there are still a lot of liquids leftover. Those bodily fluids make the ground very soft, eventually soft enough that whatever leftovers there are of this animal, such as the bones that they don't eat, get absorbed into the ground. That is the burial of the Hayot HaSadeh . Because these wild animals get buried, their song to Hashem is HaTov VHaMetiv. Tov because they don't rot- because the vultures come and clean them up, which is respectful, and VeHametiv-that they are eventually buried. This shows us that even those animals who weren't blessed, God has a heart for them as well. He didn't bless them because the snake was amongst them, but they are part of creation and they sing the song about HaTov VeHametiv . What a fascinating, beautiful thought.

Le point commun entre Gesaffelstein, The Blaze, Myd et Yodelice ? Ils sont tous managés par Savoir Faire, une société qui exerce trois métiers : le management d'artiste, les éditions et l'activité de label.Dans ce nouvel épisode hors-série, nous partons à la rencontre d'Alexandra Pilz Hayot, directrice et fondatrice de Savoir Faire, pour découvrir son parcours. Quels sont ses conseils pour les futurs managers ? Quelle est sa vision du management d'artiste ? Et surtout, quelles sont les clés pour mieux comprendre et accompagner les artistes ?Alexandra nous éclaire sur l'importance de la transmission et de l'accompagnement des jeunes managers, ainsi que sur la nécessité de reconnaître ce métier avec un statut adapté à ses responsabilités croissantes.De la gestion des relations avec les artistes aux endorsements, en passant par l'entrepreneuriat, cet épisode déborde d'enseignements précieux pour toutes celles et ceux qui s'intéressent de près ou de loin aux artisans de l'ombre de l'industrie musicale !Sold Out, le podcast pour se glisser dans les coulisses du spectacle vivant.En partenariat avec l'EMIC (www.emic-paris.com).Avec le soutien de DELIGHT.Production : Big Red Machine / Réalisation : Marc H'LIMI / Interview et programmation : Marc GONNET & Daniel FINDIKIAN / Créations visuelles et réseaux sociaux : Emilie BARDALOU

Pour certains, l'insulte suprême c'est “résidu de poule ménopausé”. Dans ce podcast, on ne se moque pas des poulpe et encore moins de personnes ménopausées. Mais pourquoi, ce phénomène physiologique naturel qui concerne la moitié de l'humanité, est-il revenu une insulte ?

Suite du troisième procès. Après les expertises, vient à nouveau le temps des témoins. Les témoins à charge s'expriment en premier : le docteur Delaroche, médecin à Loudun qui avait soigné de nombreux membres de la famille Besnard, et celui du notaire de Marie Besnard. Il est aussi beaucoup question des ragots « loudunesques ». Deux jours plus tard, sont entendus les témoins de la défense. Le ton change, l'empoisonneuse devient la « bonne dame de Loudun ». Après quoi, à 48 heures du verdict, l'heure du réquisitoire est arrivée. Le lendemain, la première plaidoirie est tenue par Maître Gautrat, Dans le journal de 20h00 de l'unique chaîne de télévision, alors que le verdict est à quelques heures d'être rendu, Frédéric Pottecher résume les propos de maître Hayot, chargé de démonter les conclusions de l'expertise toxicologique ; puis vient l'argumentaire de maître Jacqueline Favreau-Colombier en charge de l'expertise psychologique. Le dernier jour du procès, la France entière attend le verdict de cette affaire qui aura défrayé la chronique durant 12 années. Témoins de cette fébrilité, les caméras de la télévision suivent Marie Besnard alors qu'elle se rend au tribunal. Frédéric Pottecher se prépare à prendre le micro pour annoncer au public le verdict qu'il attend depuis 12 ans. *** Crédits archives *** Extrait du journal radiophonique Inter actualités de 19h15 - Chaîne nationale de la RTF - 05/12/1961 ; 07/12/1961 ; 12/12/1961 - Extraits du journal télévisé - Chaîne nationale de la RTF - 10/12/1961 ; 11/12/1961 ; 12/12/1961. *** Crédits podcast *** Ecriture : Florence Dartois - Documentaliste : Elsa Ferreira-Rato - Restauration et mixage : Ian Debeerst, Quentin Geffroy - Enregistrement voix : Guillaume Solignat - Voix off : Xavier Lemarchand - Musique(s) avec l'aimable autorisation d'Universal Production Music France - Unité de production : Delphine Lambard - Création graphique : Ugo Bouveron - Photo : (c) STF / AFP - Cheffe de projet : Laetitia Fourmond - Assistant chef de projet : Tom Chen - Responsable éditoriale : Zoé Macheret - Production INA.

Le troisième procès de Marie Besnard s'ouvre le 20 novembre 1961 devant la Cour d'assises de Bordeaux. Marie Besnard arrive libre au tribunal, accueillie par les crépitements des flashs photo. Comme en 1954, la foule se presse nombreuse aux audiences. Marie Besnard entend pour la troisième fois la lecture de l'acte d'accusation qui n'a pas varié depuis 1952, si ce n'est le nombre de ses victimes supposées qui est passé de 12 à 6. Elle clame toujours son innocence. Marie Besnard est défendue par les mêmes avocats qu'en 1952 et 1954, Favreau-Colombier, Hayot, Du Cluzeau et Gautrat. Le ministère public est représenté par le procureur général de Robert et l'avocat général Guillemin. Pendant ces dix premiers jours d'un procès de trois semaines, toujours suivi par Frédéric Pottecher, se succèdent à la barre de nombreux scientifiques. On retrouve notamment le professeur Henri Ollivier, témoin majeur de l'affaire, ainsi que de nouveaux experts tels l'ingénieur agronome Marcel Le Peintre, le professeur de toxicologie Louis Truffert ou encore le professeur Kelling de l'institut agronomique. À l'issue de l'ensemble de ces exposés scientifiques, les mobiles de Marie Besnard restent à définir. *** Crédits Archives *** Extrait du journal télévisé de 20h, Chaîne nationale de la RTF, 21 novembre 1961 - Extraits du journal radiophonique Inter actualités de 19h15, Chaîne nationale de la RTF, 21, 22, 25 et 28 novembre 1961 - Extrait du journal radiophonique Inter actualités de 7h15, Chaîne nationale de la RTF, 30 novembre 1961. *** Crédits podcast *** Écriture : Florence Dartois - Documentaliste : Elsa Ferreira-Rato - Restauration et mixage : Ian Debeerst, Quentin Geffroy - Enregistrement voix : Guillaume Solignat - Voix off : Xavier Lemarchand - Musique(s) avec l'aimable autorisation d'Universal Production Music France - Unité de production : Delphine Lambard - Création graphique : Ugo Bouveron - Photo : (c) STF / AFP - Cheffe de projet : Lӕtitia Fourmond - Assistant chef de projet : Tom Chen - Responsable éditoriale : Zoé Macheret - Production INA.

==="Words of Life", "Good News", "Gospel Songs" - Main Languages Spoken in Uzbekstan / "Слова жизни", "Благая весть", "Евангельские песни" - основные языки, на которых говорят в Узбекистане ===  (Xristian Uzbek Ibodat - ""Mening Aziz buyuk Rabbim".3gp / Christian Uzbek Worship - "My Dear Great Lord".3gp / Христианское узбекское поклонение - "Мой дорогой великий Господь" - "азиз улуг".3gp)

Uzbek South - "Words of Life".3gp / Yзбекский южный - "Слова жизни".3gp

Tajiki(Таҷикй) - "Words of Life No.2".3gp / Таджики(Таҷикй) - "Слова Жизни №2".3gp

Tajiki(Таҷикй) - "Words of Life No.1".3gp / Таджики - "Слова Жизни №1".3gp // 1 ҚӮРИНТИЁН* 13 - Роҳи муҳаббат1. Агар ман бо забонҳои одамӣ ва фариштагон гап занаму муҳаббат надошта бошам, ман ба мисли миси пурсадо ё лаъличаи ҷарангосӣ ҳастам. 2. Агар атои расондани паёми Худоро дошта бошам ва аз тамоми сирру асрор бохабар бошам, ҳар гуна дониш дошта бошам ё агар имоне дошта бошам, ки кӯҳро аз ҷояш ҷунбонаму муҳаббат надошта бошам, ман ҳеҷ касам. 3. Агар тамоми сарватамро ба камбағалон тақсим кунам ва ҳатто баданамро барои сӯзонидан қурбон кунаму муҳаббат надошта бошам, ягон фоида намебинам.4. Муҳаббат пуртоқату меҳрубон аст. Муҳаббат ҳасад намебарад, ҳавобаланд нест ва ғурур надорад. 5. Муҳаббат дағалӣ намекунад, худписанд ва зудранҷ нест ва кина ба дил намегирад. 6. Муҳаббат аз беинсофӣ шодӣ намекунад, балки аз ростӣ хушҳол мешавад. 7. Муҳаббат ҳамеша сабр мекунад ва бовар менамояд, ба ҳама чиз умед мебандад ва ба ҳама чиз тоб меорад. 8. Атои расондани паёми Худо аз байн меравад, забонҳо хомӯш мешаванд ва дониш мегузарад, лекин муҳаббат то абад мемонад.9. Мо ҳама чизро намедонем ва паёми Худоро расонданамон комил нест. 10. Аммо, вақте ки пуррагӣ меояд, ҳама чизи нопурра аз байн меравад. 11. Масалан, вақте ки ман кӯдак будам, ҳамчун кӯдак гап мезадаму фикру муҳокима мерондам. Лекин вақте ки калон шудам, ҳар чизи кӯдакиро фаромӯш кардам. 12. Ҳозир мо Худоро ба мисли сурати хира дар оинаи чанголуд дида метавонем. Дар он дунё Ӯро рӯ ба рӯ хоҳем дид. Ҳозир мо ҳама чизро намедонем, лекин дертар чӣ хеле ки Худо моро ба таври пурра мефаҳмад, мо низ ҳамон тавр ба таври комил мефаҳмем.13. Хулоса, ин се чиз боқӣ мемонад, ки инҳо имон, умед ва муҳаббат мебошанд. Вале муҳаббат бузургтарини онҳо аст.

Korean - "Words of Life".3gp / Корейский - "Слова жизни".3gp // 요한복음 1 - 그리스도는 하나님이심1.  우주가 존재하기 전에 말씀 되시는 그리스도가 계셨다. 그분은 하나님과 함께 계셨으며 바로 그분이 하나님이셨다.2. 그리스도는 맨 처음부터 하나님과 함께 계셨고3. 모든 것은 그분을 통해서 창조되었으며 그분 없이 만들어진 것은 아무것도 없다.4. 그리스도 안에 생명이 있었으니 이 생명은 인류의 빛이었다.5. 이 빛이 어두움 속에서 빛나고 있었으나 어두움이 이 빛을 깨닫지 못하였다.6. 하나님이 보내신 요한이라는 사람이 있었다.7. 그는 이 빛에 대해서 증거하여 사람들이 자기를 통해 믿도록 하기 위해서 왔다.8. 그는 빛이 아니었으며 다만 이 빛에 대하여 증거하러 온 것뿐이었다.9. 세상에 와서 모든 사람을 비추는 참 빛이 있었다.10. 그분이 세상에 계셨고 세상은 그분을 통해서 만들어졌는데도 세상이 그분을 알지 못했으며11; 자.기 땅에 오셨으나 자기 백성들까지도 그분을 영접하지 않았다.12; 그러나 그분은 자기를 영접하고 믿는 사람들에게는 하나님의 자녀가 되는 특권을 주셨다.13; 이 사람들이 하나님의 자녀가 된 것은 핏줄이나 육체적 욕망이나 사람의 뜻으로 된 것이 아니라 하나님의 뜻에 의해서 된 것이다.14.  말씀 되시는 그리스도께서 사람이 되어 우리 가운데 사셨다. 우리가 그분의 영광을 보니 하나님 아버지의 외아들의 영광이었고 은혜와 진리가 충만하였다.세례 요한의 증언15. 요한은 그분에 대하여 이렇게 외치며 증거하였다. “내가 전에 내 뒤에 오시는 분이 나보다 위대한 것은 그분이 나보다 먼저 계셨기 때문이라고 말했는데 그가 바로 이분이시다.”16. 우리는 모두 그분의 넘치는 은혜를 한없이 받았다.17. 율법은 모세를 통해 주신 것이지만 은혜와 진리는 예수 그리스도를 통해 왔다.18. 지금까지 하나님을 본 사람은 없었다. 그러나 아버지의 품안에 계시는 외아들이 그분을 알리셨다.

The Torah commands in Parashat Kedoshim (Vayikra 19:19), “Behemtecha Lo Tarbi'a Kil'ayim,” which forbids mating a male animal and a female animal from different species. Crossbreeding is forbidden regardless of whether one mates two Behemot (domesticated animals) from different species, or two Hayot (non-domesticated animals) from different species. This prohibition applies also to mating land creatures with sea creatures. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that G-d forbade crossbreeding because He created the world with the precise species with which He wanted the world to be inhabited. The Torah tells that after the process of creation, “G-d saw everything He made, and behold, it was very good” (Bereshit 1:31). He was pleased with His creations, and does not want more species to come into existence. Therefore, He forbade creating new species through crossbreeding. The Sefer Ha'hinuch warns that G-d's blessing is not bestowed upon new species which are created through the mating of different animal species. Nevertheless, if one violated this prohibition and mated animals of different species, the product is permissible for benefit. If both parents' species are kosher, then the animal they produced is permissible for consumption. There is some discussion as to how the offspring's status is determined – whether it assumes the status of the father's species or the mother's species. Halacha treats Behemot differently from Hayot, and thus if a Behema is mated with a Haya, we must determine whether to regard the offspring as a Behema or a Haya. It appears from the Rif (Rav Yishak of Fez, Morocco, 1013-1103) that the product of crossbreeding assumes the status of the mother, and thus, for example, if the mother is a Haya, then the offspring is treated as a Haya. This prohibition applies in all places, in all times, and to both men and women. One who actively mates animals of different species has violated this prohibition and is liable to Malkut. Since this violation is transgressed through committing an action, violators are liable to Malkut for their offense. If one causes the animals to mate indirectly, such as by making certain sounds, or bringing them together into the same pen, then he is guilty of violating a Rabbinic enactment, and receives Malkut for disobeying this provision. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998), in one of his responsa (Or Le'sion, vol. 2, p. 141), addresses the status of fruits produced via grafting a branch of one species onto a tree of a different species. He writes that one who eats this fruit for the first time in a year does not recite the Beracha of “She'he'hiyanu,” which is normally recited when one eats a fruit for the first time that year. We obviously cannot celebrate the opportunity to enjoy something which the Torah did not want produced, and thus reciting “She'he'hiyanu” would be inappropriate. If, however, seeds from this hybrid fruit were planted, and yielded additional fruit, one who eats that fruit does, in fact, recite “She'he'hiyanu,” because planting these seeds is entirely permissible, and thus the fruit has been produced through permissible means. Hacham Bension also addresses the question of whether one would recite “She'he'hiyanu” over such a fruit if he had already eaten that season both species from which it was produced. One might figure that this fruit is not new for the individual, since he had already eaten the two “parent” fruits. However, Hacham Bension rules that one does, in fact, recite “She'he'hiyanu” in such a case, because this fruit is considered an entirely new entity, fundamentally different from the two species from which it was produced.

The Torah in Parashat Ahareh-Mot (18:23) forbids a male from engaging in intercourse with an animal. The Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that the Torah forbids such an act because G-d wants all creatures to reproduce their own species, and not to mix with other species. For this reason, the Sefer Ha'hinuch adds, creatures produced through crossbreeding are incapable of reproducing. For example, a mule – the product of a horse and donkey – cannot reproduce, and fruits produced through grafting are likewise unable to reproduce. G-d arranged the natural world in such a way that products of crossbreeding are not blessed with the ability to reproduce because he wanted all the original species to mate only within the same species to reproduce that species. All the more so, the Sefer Ha'hinuch adds, G-d does not want the human being, the crown jewel of creation, to mix with the lower species by mating with animals. This prohibition forbids intercourse with both Behemot (domesticated animals) and Hayot (non-domesticated animals). Although the Torah mentions here only “Behema,” this prohibition applies to all creatures. This prohibition applies to an animal of any age, even an animal that has just been born. Both regular intercourse (“Ke'darkah”) and abnormal intercourse (“She'lo Ke'darkah”) are forbidden by force of this Biblical command. If a man willfully transgressed this prohibition and had intercourse with an animal, in the presence of witnesses who warned him in advance, then he is liable to Sekila (execution by stoning), and the animal is likewise put to death through Sekila. The Gemara explains that the animal is executed for two reasons. First, even though the animal quite obviously cannot be blamed for what happened, nevertheless, since it did, after all, cause a person to commit this grievous sinful act, it needs to be put to death. Secondly, allowing it to live would bring shame to the perpetrator, as people who see the animal would immediately be reminded of the repugnant act the sinner had committed. The Torah has great sensitivity even to sinners, and wishes to protect their honor, and thus even if someone commits this grave sin, for which he is put to death, nevertheless, he is protected from additional shame. The animal is put to death only if the one who performed the act is at least nine years old. Of course, the one who committed the act is not executed unless he is a Halachic adult (age thirteen or above). Nevertheless, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that even if the perpetrator is a minor, he should receive some punishment for this shameful act as part of his training to observe the Torah's laws. If the perpetrator was younger than age nine, then the animal is not put to death. This prohibition applies in all times and in all places. As mentioned, one who intentionally violates this prohibition in the presence of witnesses is liable to Sekila. If no witnesses saw the violation, then he is liable to Karet. If one transgressed this prohibition unintentionally – meaning, he was not aware that the Torah forbids such an act – then he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering).

Misva #153: Identifying the Kosher Status of Animals Length: 5:41 The Torah in Parashat Shemini (Vayikra 11) establishes the “Simanim” – the features that determine an animal's status vis-à-vis its permissibility for consumption. Specifically, it states that an animal with split hooves and that chews its cud is permissible, whereas an animal which either does not have split hooves, or does not chew its cud, is forbidden. The Sefer Ha'hinuch, following the view of the Rambam, maintains that inspecting an animal to determine its kosher status constitutes one of the 613 Biblical commands. The Gemara states that every animal which chews its cud also has split hooves, except for the camel, the rabbit and the hare. Conversely, every animal with split hooves also chews its cud, with the exception of the pig. Torah law also distinguishes between two categories of animals – Behemot (domesticated animals) and Hayot (non-domesticated animals). One difference between these two categories relates to the consumption of Heleb (certain fats): the Heleb of Behemot is forbidden for consumption, whereas the Heleb of Hayot is permissible. Secondly, after slaughtering a Haya, one must perform Kisui Ha'dam (covering the blood), whereas after slaughtering a Behema, this is not required. The Torah does not inform us how to distinguish between a Behema and Haya, but tradition teaches that a creature's status can be determined by its horns. The horns of a Haya are “Keruchot” (layered), “Hadukot” (notched) and “Hadurot” (round), and thus an animal with horns featuring all three properties is to be regarded as a Haya, and other animals fall under the category of Behema. Interestingly, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, following the Rambam, that if one ate an animal's meat without bothering to determine its status, whether or not it has the required properties, then he has transgressed this affirmative command. Even if the animal is later determined to have been a kosher species, nevertheless, the individual is in violation of a Biblical command by neglecting to check and ascertain its kosher status. Generally speaking, the Rambam maintains that the principle of “Safek De'Orayata Le'humra,” requiring one to act stringently in situations of doubt concerning a Torah law, was enacted by the Sages. As far as Torah law is concerned, if one is uncertain regarding a matter involving a Biblical command, he made act leniently, and it was the Sages who enacted that he must act stringently. An exception to this rule is the kosher status of a species of animal. If a person is uncertain as to whether a given species is kosher, Torah law forbids him from eating the animal's meat until he ascertains the status of its species. Rav Yishak Arama (Spain, d. 1494) goes even further, asserting that this Misva requires identifying an animal's status based on its physical properties even if one has no intention of eating the animal's meat. According to this view, there is an obligation to know how to identify kosher and non-kosher species, regardless of whether one intends to eat any given creature. This command underscores for us the great importance of Kashrut. The Torah made a point of singling out this particular area, requiring special vigilance to ascertain that what we eat is permissible, and to ensure to distinguish between kosher and non-kosher species, showing how vitally important it is to make sure to eat only that which G-d permits.

The Torah in Parashat Sav (Vayikra 7:23) forbids partaking of the Heleb – certain fats – of oxen, sheep and goats. The Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that the Torah forbade consuming these fats because, quite simply, they are unhealthful, and can cause physical harm. A person's health, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, depends largely on the food he eats, because the body is always decomposing, and food is needed to replenish the body. In essence, then, the food one eats becomes his body, and therefore, ingesting good food causes the body to be strong and healthy, whereas ingesting bad food is harmful to the body. G-d, in His infinite kindness, commanded us to refrain from foods which cause us harm, and He thus forbade the consumption of Heleb, which is unhealthful. As mentioned, the Torah specifies the Heleb of oxen, sheep and goats, and thus the Heleb of other animals is permissible. This prohibition applies even to the Heleb of a Nebela – animal which died in a manner other than proper Shehita (slaughtering) – and of a Terefa – animal which suffers from a fatal physical condition. The meat of these animals, of course, is forbidden because of the prohibition against eating meat of a Nebela or Terefa, and the Heleb is also forbidden just like the Heleb of properly slaughtered, permissible animals. If a pregnant animal is slaughtered, then the Heleb of the fetus is permissible for consumption. Since the fetus is considered part of the mother's body, and the mother underwent proper Shehita, the fetus' Heleb may be eaten. However, the Rambam maintains that this does not apply if the pregnancy had reached full-term, such that the fetus was fully developed and ready for birth when the slaughtering occurred. In such a case, according to the Rambam, the fetus is regarded as a separate animal, such that its Heleb is forbidden. Most other authorities dispute this ruling of the Rambam. The prohibition of Heleb features a unique leniency, as it is permissible to sell it commercially. Whereas it is generally forbidden to do commerce with forbidden foods, one may engage in commerce selling Heleb. This leniency results in an interesting distinction between Behemot (domesticated animals) and Hayot (non-domesticated animals). The fats of non-domesticated animals are not only permissible, but not even considered “Heleb” at all. Therefore, if such an animal is a Nebela or Terefa, its fat may not be sold commercially, since it does not qualify as “Heleb” and is therefore not subject to this special leniency. This fat is treated like the other portions of the Nebela or Terefa, which are forbidden for consumption and also for commercial use. It is only the fat of domesticated animals, which has the formal status of “Heleb,” which may be sold commercially. The Heleb prohibition applies in all places, in all times, and to both men and women. One who intentionally eats a Ke'zayit of Heleb is liable to Malkut and Karet. If one accidentally eats a Ke'zayit of Heleb, he must bring a Hatat (sin-offering).

Three times, the Torah issues the command, “You shall not cook a kid in its mother's milk” (Shemot 23:19 & 34:26, Debarim 14:21), forbidding cooking meat with milk. The Rabbis understood that these three verses establish three prohibitions – cooking meat with milk, even without the intention of eating it; eating meat with milk; and deriving other forms of benefit from meat that had bene cooked with milk, such as selling it. Although the Torah introduces three separate commands, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains that these are to be counted as only two of the Torah's 613 Misvot, because the prohibitions against eating and deriving benefit are essentially a single law. Anything which the Torah forbids for consumption is forbidden also for other forms of benefit, and thus the prohibition against eating meat with milk and the prohibition against deriving benefit from such a mixture compromise a single Biblical command. The Gemara raises the question of why the Torah did not explicitly forbid eating meat with milk, and instead alluded to this prohibition by repeating the command against cooking meat with milk. The answer, the Gemara explains, is that the Torah wanted to instruct that eating meat with milk is forbidden even if one eats in a manner that does not provide any enjoyment. Normally, Torah law forbids eating prohibited food only “Derech Hana'a” – in an enjoyable manner, as the verb “A.Ch.L.” (“eat”) indicates. The Torah does not use this verb in reference to the prohibition of “Basar Be'halab” to teach that one transgresses this prohibition even if one eats in a non-enjoyable manner. For example, if one eats meat that has been cooked with milk and is still scalding hot, such that it burns his mouth and throat, and he receives no enjoyment whatsoever, he has nevertheless violated the Biblical command of “Basar Be'halab.” The Sefer Ha'hinuch mentions numerous different laws that apply with regard to this prohibition: 1) It applies only to kosher species of animal; cooking meat from a non-kosher species with milk does not transgress this prohibition. 2) It applies only to domesticated animals (Behemot), not to non-domesticated animals (Hayot). Cooking meat of a non-domesticated animal with milk does not transgress this Biblical prohibition. Likewise, this prohibition does not include poultry. As we know, however, the Sages enacted a provision requiring treating poultry as meat in this regard, such that one may not cook chicken with milk, or partake of such a mixture. 3) The Sages forbade even putting meat and milk on the same table at the same time, even if one plans on eating only one and not the other. 4) Another law enacted by the Sages forbids consuming milk after eating meat. It is thus customary to wait six hours after eating meat before partaking of milk or dairy products. The Sages extended this prohibition to require waiting even after eating poultry. 5) The Sages did not forbid eating fish or kosher species of grasshoppers with milk. 6) There is an extraordinary law which applies specifically to the prohibition of “Basar Be'halab” known as “Haticha Na'aset Nebela.” This refers to the case of a piece of meat which had absorbed some milk, and was then added to a pot of kosher meat. In such a case, the food in the pot is permissible only if the piece of meat which had been mixed with milk constitutes one-sixtieth or less of the food. Even though it was mixed with only a small amount of milk, nevertheless, the entire piece of meat is regarded as forbidden – like a piece of Nebela (meat from an animal which was not properly slaughtered) – and thus a ratio of 60:1 against the entire piece of meat is needed to permit the food. This situation differs from the case of a piece of meat that had been mixed with a small amount of other forbidden food – such as Heleb (forbidden fat) – and was then added to a pot of kosher meat. In that case, the contents of the pot are permissible if the quantity of forbidden food comprises one-sixtieth or less of all the food in the pot; a 60:1 ratio is needed only against the forbidden food, not against the entire piece of meat. Due to the unique severity of “Basar Be'halab,” however, a piece of meat which had been cooked with milk is treated as a piece of forbidden meat, such that a ratio of 60:1 is needed against the entire piece, and not just against the milk it had absorbed. 7) If one burned meat that had been cooked with milk, the ashes are forbidden for any sort of benefit. 8) Milk taken from a dead animal is not included in the Torah prohibition against cooking meat with milk. Therefore, on the level of Torah law, after a female animal is slaughtered, it is permissible to cook its udder with its milk and then eat it. However, the Sages enacted a requirement to first extract the milk from the udder in order for it to become permissible for consumption. However, milk found in the animal's stomach after slaughtering is permissible to be consumed with meat, for two reasons – it was taken from a dead animal, and, milk in the stomach is not considered milk, as it has already decayed and no longer resembles milk. 9) An animal embryo is considered meat with regard to this prohibition, and it thus may not be cooked with milk. However, an animal's skin, sinews, bones, hoofs and horns are not considered “meat” with regard to this prohibition, and thus the prohibition of “Basar Be'halab” does not apply to them. Of course, this prohibition applies at all times, in all places, and to both males and females. One who eats a Ke'zayit of a mixture of meat and milk has transgressed this command and is liable to Malkut. However, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes that if someone derives some other form of benefit from “Basar Be'halab,” then he does not receive Malkut. The reason, the Sefer Ha'hinuch explains, is because it is possible to receive benefit from “Basar Be'halab” without performing action – such as by warming oneself with the heat of a piece of meat that had just been cooked with milk. Therefore, the Sefer Ha'hinuch writes, since this prohibition can be violated without an action, one is not liable to Malkut even if he violates it by committing an action, such as selling meat that had been cooked with milk.

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context.

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/medicine

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/intellectual-history

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/history

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/sociology

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/literary-studies

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/art

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/performing-arts

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/religion

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky’s College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/anthropology

Scientists have scientific reason and use the scientific method. Humanists have... Emotion? Close reading? Not so, argues Eric Hayot in Humanist Reason: A History. An Argument. A Plan (Columbia UP, 2021). Contrary to popular belief, the humanities involve both reasoning and methods. Humanist reason, Hayot shows, is philosophically and historically grounded and applicable to almost every discipline. Part history of philosophy, part methods handbook, and part manifesto, Humanist Reason will change the way we advocate for the humanities in the twenty-first century. Claire Clark is a medical educator, historian of medicine, and associate professor in the University of Kentucky's College of Medicine. She teaches and writes about health behavior in historical context. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/book-of-the-day

3ème numéro de Culture Baseball At-Bat #3 avec la journaliste Marion Hayot, membre du site The Strike Out et du podcast Hype. Au programme : * 3"00 - Présentation de Marion Hayot * 10"35 - Une équipe hors du commun (A League of their Own, Penny Marshall, 1992) et le baseball au féminin de la All American Girls Professional Baseball League (1943-1954), entre discrimination et émancipation *30"25 - Bottom of the 33rd : Hope, Redemption and Baseball's Longest Game (Dan Barry, 2011) : le match le plus long du baseball professionnel * 50"15 - Baseball Codes (Jason Turbow, Michael Duca, 2010) : les règles non écrites du baseball * 1'10''15 - Quizz : Yankees, Nationals ou Blue Jays ? Bonne écoute !

#006 - C'est aujourd'hui un épisode un peu particulier car nous accueillons Simon Hayot. Que vous ayez dévoré son ouvrage “Allô la tour, Y'a un boeuf dans le cockpit !”, ou non, soyez assurés d'être captivés par les anecdotes toujours plus folles et inédites de ce pilote de DC3 qui quadrille les Antilles depuis plus de 40 ans ! Embarquement immédiat et accrochez-vous ! Pour ceux qui souhaiteraient poursuivre l'aventure, son livre “Allô la tour, Y'a un boeuf dans le cockpit !” est depuis peu disponible également au format livre de poche. Cette nouvelle version, éditée chez Mareuil Éditions, est disponible dès aujourd'hui ! Également accessible en e-book.*Viens faire un tour sur xpchibane.com !Soutiens-nous :Si tu aimes ce podcast, la meilleure façon de nous soutenir est de nous mettre une bonne note et un commentaire. Tu peux également parler de L'Expérience Chibane autour de toi à ta famille, tes amis et sur les réseaux sociaux !Au delà de ça, si tu souhaites nous apporter un soutien financier pour nous aider à aller à la recherche d'invités toujours plus passionnants, deux options s'offrent à toi :Patreon - Tu peux t'abonner mensuellement sur Patreon pour nous soutenir et obtenir des contreparties sympa  comme des goodies par exemple ! https://www.patreon.com/xpchibanePayPal - Tu peux également nous faire un don ponctuel sur PayPal si tu souhaites nous aider à poursuivre cette aventure palpitante !Production :Marek Madl, Ilia Gerber, Thibaut Maurin, Léa Renault, Victor Guichaoua, Maxence Le Flahec, Paul Le Roux De Bretagne et Sébastien Selle.Merci beaucoup pour ton temps et bons vols !Support the show (https://www.patreon.com/xpchibane)

“This is a book that wants you to surpass and destroy it.” Eric Hayot‘s new book has the potential to transform how we teach and practice academic writing, and it invites the kind of reading and engagement that makes such a transformation possible. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities (Columbia University Press, 2014) is a style guide geared specifically toward academic writers in the humanities, paying special attention to the field of literary and cultural theory but applying equally well across humanistic disciplines. At turns funny, moving, and brilliant – not always qualities we associate with writing style guides – Hayot's book treats writing as a process that encompasses “behavioral, emotional, & institutional parameters.” The first section of the book treats writing as a form of life, addressing the contexts and habits of the writer and the institutional contexts in which we teach and write. It also offers some strategies for getting writing done in the course of the typically crazy, packed life of the academic writer, and includes some great advice for thinking about the relationship between a dissertation and a book. The second section addresses strategies of academic writing, introducing the scalable “Uneven-U” model for conceptualizing the structure of paragraphs, essays, and beyond. It also includes some helpful ways to understand and craft openings and closings, and reminds us how important it is to keep the experience of our readers in mind as we write. The third section offers great advice on some of the elemental tactics of writing practice, including citation, sentence rhythm, and much more. The final section suggests a way to think about the writing in terms of “becoming”: a writer, a written work, a form of life. The Elements of Academic Style is a book well worth reading and rereading. I've already been using it in my teaching and writing, and it's a fitting work to inaugurate the New Books Network Seminar!

“This is a book that wants you to surpass and destroy it.” Eric Hayot‘s new book has the potential to transform how we teach and practice academic writing, and it invites the kind of reading and engagement that makes such a transformation possible. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities (Columbia University Press, 2014) is a style guide geared specifically toward academic writers in the humanities, paying special attention to the field of literary and cultural theory but applying equally well across humanistic disciplines. At turns funny, moving, and brilliant – not always qualities we associate with writing style guides – Hayot’s book treats writing as a process that encompasses “behavioral, emotional, & institutional parameters.” The first section of the book treats writing as a form of life, addressing the contexts and habits of the writer and the institutional contexts in which we teach and write. It also offers some strategies for getting writing done in the course of the typically crazy, packed life of the academic writer, and includes some great advice for thinking about the relationship between a dissertation and a book. The second section addresses strategies of academic writing, introducing the scalable “Uneven-U” model for conceptualizing the structure of paragraphs, essays, and beyond. It also includes some helpful ways to understand and craft openings and closings, and reminds us how important it is to keep the experience of our readers in mind as we write. The third section offers great advice on some of the elemental tactics of writing practice, including citation, sentence rhythm, and much more. The final section suggests a way to think about the writing in terms of “becoming”: a writer, a written work, a form of life. The Elements of Academic Style is a book well worth reading and rereading. I’ve already been using it in my teaching and writing, and it’s a fitting work to inaugurate the New Books Network Seminar! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“This is a book that wants you to surpass and destroy it.” Eric Hayot‘s new book has the potential to transform how we teach and practice academic writing, and it invites the kind of reading and engagement that makes such a transformation possible. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities (Columbia University Press, 2014) is a style guide geared specifically toward academic writers in the humanities, paying special attention to the field of literary and cultural theory but applying equally well across humanistic disciplines. At turns funny, moving, and brilliant – not always qualities we associate with writing style guides – Hayot’s book treats writing as a process that encompasses “behavioral, emotional, & institutional parameters.” The first section of the book treats writing as a form of life, addressing the contexts and habits of the writer and the institutional contexts in which we teach and write. It also offers some strategies for getting writing done in the course of the typically crazy, packed life of the academic writer, and includes some great advice for thinking about the relationship between a dissertation and a book. The second section addresses strategies of academic writing, introducing the scalable “Uneven-U” model for conceptualizing the structure of paragraphs, essays, and beyond. It also includes some helpful ways to understand and craft openings and closings, and reminds us how important it is to keep the experience of our readers in mind as we write. The third section offers great advice on some of the elemental tactics of writing practice, including citation, sentence rhythm, and much more. The final section suggests a way to think about the writing in terms of “becoming”: a writer, a written work, a form of life. The Elements of Academic Style is a book well worth reading and rereading. I’ve already been using it in my teaching and writing, and it’s a fitting work to inaugurate the New Books Network Seminar! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“This is a book that wants you to surpass and destroy it.” Eric Hayot‘s new book has the potential to transform how we teach and practice academic writing, and it invites the kind of reading and engagement that makes such a transformation possible. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities (Columbia University Press, 2014) is a style guide geared specifically toward academic writers in the humanities, paying special attention to the field of literary and cultural theory but applying equally well across humanistic disciplines. At turns funny, moving, and brilliant – not always qualities we associate with writing style guides – Hayot’s book treats writing as a process that encompasses “behavioral, emotional, & institutional parameters.” The first section of the book treats writing as a form of life, addressing the contexts and habits of the writer and the institutional contexts in which we teach and write. It also offers some strategies for getting writing done in the course of the typically crazy, packed life of the academic writer, and includes some great advice for thinking about the relationship between a dissertation and a book. The second section addresses strategies of academic writing, introducing the scalable “Uneven-U” model for conceptualizing the structure of paragraphs, essays, and beyond. It also includes some helpful ways to understand and craft openings and closings, and reminds us how important it is to keep the experience of our readers in mind as we write. The third section offers great advice on some of the elemental tactics of writing practice, including citation, sentence rhythm, and much more. The final section suggests a way to think about the writing in terms of “becoming”: a writer, a written work, a form of life. The Elements of Academic Style is a book well worth reading and rereading. I’ve already been using it in my teaching and writing, and it’s a fitting work to inaugurate the New Books Network Seminar! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“This is a book that wants you to surpass and destroy it.” Eric Hayot‘s new book has the potential to transform how we teach and practice academic writing, and it invites the kind of reading and engagement that makes such a transformation possible. The Elements of Academic Style: Writing for the Humanities (Columbia University Press, 2014) is a style guide geared specifically toward academic writers in the humanities, paying special attention to the field of literary and cultural theory but applying equally well across humanistic disciplines. At turns funny, moving, and brilliant – not always qualities we associate with writing style guides – Hayot’s book treats writing as a process that encompasses “behavioral, emotional, & institutional parameters.” The first section of the book treats writing as a form of life, addressing the contexts and habits of the writer and the institutional contexts in which we teach and write. It also offers some strategies for getting writing done in the course of the typically crazy, packed life of the academic writer, and includes some great advice for thinking about the relationship between a dissertation and a book. The second section addresses strategies of academic writing, introducing the scalable “Uneven-U” model for conceptualizing the structure of paragraphs, essays, and beyond. It also includes some helpful ways to understand and craft openings and closings, and reminds us how important it is to keep the experience of our readers in mind as we write. The third section offers great advice on some of the elemental tactics of writing practice, including citation, sentence rhythm, and much more. The final section suggests a way to think about the writing in terms of “becoming”: a writer, a written work, a form of life. The Elements of Academic Style is a book well worth reading and rereading. I’ve already been using it in my teaching and writing, and it’s a fitting work to inaugurate the New Books Network Seminar! Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices