Podcasts about permissible

New Case Involving Administrative Enforcement Insecticide Wheat Seed Treatments Getting the Correct Sample for Testing   00:01:05 – New Case Involving Administrative Enforcement: Beginning today's show is Roger McEowen, K-State and Washburn law professor, as he covers a couple of topics that include administrative enforcement and citizen arrests. Making a Citizen's Arrest - Is it Permissible? If so, is it a Good Idea? A Shift in Administrative Enforcement for Agriculture Washburnlaw.edu/WALTR Roger on AgManager.info   00:12:05 – Insecticide Wheat Seed Treatments: K-State crop entomologist, Jeff Whitworth, moves the show forward discussing insecticide seed treatments and if he sees them as a worthwhile option for growers.   00:23:05 – Getting the Correct Sample for Testing: The Beef Cattle Institute's Cattle Chat podcast with Brad White, Scott Fritz, Bob Larson, Phillip Lancaster and Dustin Pendell ends the show as they talk about their recent topic of the Bovine Science podcast.  BCI Cattle Chat Podcast Bovine Science with BCI Podcast Email BCI at bci@ksu.edu     Send comments, questions or requests for copies of past programs to ksrenews@ksu.edu.   Agriculture Today is a daily program featuring Kansas State University agricultural specialists and other experts examining ag issues facing Kansas and the nation. It is hosted by Shelby Varner and distributed to radio stations throughout Kansas and as a daily podcast.   K‑State Research and Extension is a short name for the Kansas State University Agricultural Experiment Station and Cooperative Extension Service, a program designed to generate and distribute useful knowledge for the well‑being of Kansans. Supported by county, state, federal and private funds, the program has county Extension offices, experiment fields, area Extension offices and regional research centers statewide. Its headquarters is on the K‑State campus in Manhattan

Rabbeinu Yonah teaches us how to avoid the fourth case of Avak Lashon HaRa.

This conversation delves into the complexities of character evidence in law, focusing on the federal rules of evidence, particularly Rules 404, 405, 406, 608, and 609. The discussion emphasizes the importance of understanding the admissibility of character evidence, the distinctions between civil and criminal trials, and the strategic implications for litigators. Key concepts such as the propensity rule, methods of proving character, and the nuances of impeachment are explored, providing listeners with a comprehensive overview of how character evidence operates within the legal system.TakeawaysUnderstanding character evidence is crucial for law students.The propensity rule prohibits using character to prove conduct.Reputation testimony must be based on community consensus.Specific instances of conduct are generally inadmissible.Civil cases have stricter rules on character evidence than criminal cases.Defendants can introduce good character evidence in criminal trials.The prosecution cannot initiate character attacks in criminal cases.Habit evidence is distinct from character evidence.Impeachment can be done through character for truthfulness.Prior convictions can be used to impeach a witness's credibility.character evidence, evidence law, federal rules of evidence, legal strategy, courtroom tactics, admissibility, civil trials, criminal trials, propensity evidence, impeachment

One of the customs which we observe during the Nine Days – from Rosh Hodesh Ab through Tisha B'Ab – is to refrain from meat. The Mishna establishes that eating meat is forbidden only during the Se'uda Mafseket – the final meal before Tisha B'Ab – but the custom was accepted to refrain from meat throughout the period of the Nine Days (except, of course, on Shabbat). A number of companies today sell synthetic meat – products made from soy or other ingredients but resemble meat, and are eaten as meat substitutes. Are such products permissible for consumption during the Nine Days? Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Jerusalem, 1924-1998) writes that although the concept of Mar'it Ha'ayin – avoiding actions which appear as Halachic violations – forbids eating something which appears prohibited, this rule does not apply to something which is forbidden only by force of Minhag (accepted custom). When something is forbidden by the strict Halacha, then we must be concerned about Mar'it Ha'ayin, but not when it is forbidden only on the level of Minhag. Therefore, Hacham Bension writes, it is permissible during the Nine Days to eat vegetarian products which resemble meat, but during the Se'uda Mafseket, when meat is forbidden on the level of strict Halacha, it may be eaten only privately, but not in public view. Summary: Synthetic meat products – meaning, products which resemble meat but are made from soy or other ingredients – may be eaten during the Nine Days. However, during the Se'uda Mafseket right before Tisha B'Ab, such products may be eaten only in private, but not in a public setting.

In this episode, we delve into the halachic complexities of dealing with small insects—specifically fleas and lice—on Shabbat. We explore when removing or killing them is permitted, distinguishing between pain-based allowances and general prohibitions. Learn key rulings from classic halachic sources and understand the rabbinic versus biblical distinctions regarding trapping and killing small creatures on Shabbat.

Is it Permissible to Leave Eretz Yisrael? - Document for Daf 13 by Simon Wolf

Lila Rose is an anti-abortion activist who is the founder and president of the anti-abortion organization Live Action and the author of Fighting for Life: Becoming a Force for Change in a Wounded World. She's the host of the Lila Rose Show on YouTube and has engaged in a number of debates over the ethics of abortion. Join the Theology in the Raw community for as little as $5/month to get access to premium content. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

In this compelling episode, host Nadia Nagamootoo speaks with renowned photographer, Robert Taylor. Robert discusses his impactful journey from the RAF to becoming an acclaimed artist whose work champions black queer visibility and diversity. Robert shares insights about his pioneering, powerful project, "Permissible Beauty," exhibited at Hampton Court Palace, which creatively explored Black queer representation and challenged traditional beauty standards. Delving deeply into topics such as British identity, the transformative potential of art, and his contributions to LGBTQ+ advocacy and women's visibility in STEM and academe, Robert's story highlights the power of authenticity, courage, and creative expression in challenging societal norms and fostering inclusion.Key Takeaways:Art can challenge traditional standards of beauty and identity, making space for diverse representation.Visibility and representation of marginalised groups in heritage spaces can profoundly impact audience perceptions and foster deeper understanding.Creating dialogue and opening spaces for previously unheard voices requires courage, intentionality, and a willingness to embrace vulnerability.Personal experiences deeply inform artistic expression, leading to transformative social impact.Intersectionality and personal identity are crucial in navigating and reshaping societal narratives.Active allyship and institutional support are essential in successfully advancing diversity and inclusion projects.Highlights Robert's journey from RAF serviceman to prominent photographer, illustrating diverse pathways to creative expression.The Permissible Beauty project at Hampton Court Palace and its groundbreaking portrayal of black queer narratives.Exploring Britishness and navigating personal identity within predominantly white and traditional spaces.The significant role of chosen families in the queer community, illustrated through the "Four-Sided Triangle" project.Capturing portraits of pioneering women for major institutions like the National Portrait Gallery and Oxbridge colleges, showcasing women's achievements in STEM and academe.Robert's reflections on challenging conventional perceptions of beauty, success, and representation in contemporary art and culture.Guest BioRobert came to photography via the RAF, The Bar, and publishing. His work is held in collections including the NPG, the V&A, and numerous Oxbridge colleges. His work ranges from commercial portraiture to art projects. His many contributions to HIV prevention include a major safer sex education book with Peter Tatchell. Robert has dedicated time to commissioned collections of portraits of women of outstanding achievement in STEM and academe. A 2023 project at Hampton Court Palace explored notions of beauty, from eight black queer perspectives: https://permissiblebeauty.le.ac.uk/.Other interests include offender rehabilitation through the arts, clothing, and jewellery for men.LinksRobert Taylor: Website | Instag⁠ramNadia Nagamootoo:⁠ LinkedIn⁠ |⁠ Instagram⁠Avenir Consulting: ⁠https://linktr.ee/avenirconsultingservices⁠

Send us a textIn this episode Tony talks more about permissible energies in a part 2. What do you permit in your life? Do you think it is random when "bad" things happen to you?  What do you expect in life? Know that you are permitting this to happen. If not so good things happens know that you are permitting that to happen that as well. As Tony messages from spirit that it is not about being fair that some people work so much less and end up getting more. This is the height of permitting.   If you permit low energies or low vibrational thoughts like fear, anger, guilt, etc. to come in it will be just enough to give your permission to keep money away from you as far as it is possible. If you are looking for more answers on this topic listen in and discover more in this podcast.This Meditation only podcast channel with Tony and his Tuning Forks:https://raisingyourspiritsmeditation.buzzsprout.comIn the meditation portion of this podcast we used the Imagination Frequency Meditation: The Imagination Frequency Meditation - 15 minSupport the showHere is a link to Tony's many classes coming up: https://lovehigherself.com/eventsSubscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/susanneandtony17 for Tony's Tuning Fork meditations.Podcast Library: https://raisingyourspirits.buzzsprout.comNew Meditation only Podcast Library: Raising Your Spirits Meditation Podcast (buzzsprout.com)Tony Gyenis conducts free weekly on-line Tuning Fork meditation on Fridays called Tune In with Tony which is a private Facebook group. Book your spot here: https://calendly.com/whitelight878/tune-in-with-tonyIf you would like to donate or support our channel to help keep us going we would so appreciate it: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1648510/supportTony's eCard: https://link.v1ce.co.uk/pbex/tonygyenis

1 Corinthians: A Church Gone Wild - Chapter 6 ContinuedPodcast from Nfluence Church | Granger, IndianaFeaturing: Pastor Lucas Miles

1 Corinthians: A Church Gone Wild - Chapter 6 ContinuedPodcast from Nfluence Church | Granger, IndianaFeaturing: Pastor Lucas Miles

Send us a textIn this episode Tony talks about energies that don't have your direct permission to be a part of your life yet they are not addressed and end up staying. When someone breaks into your home you do something about it right away. When a nuisance energy enters your aura we tend to not do anything to make it leave. If someone told you you are worthless and you say nothing that energy of having no value ends up staying in your body. You will go through years just complaining about the energy before you end up letting it go as it is too much hang onto. Spirit relays through Tony that we all pick up various energies that is not good for us but the main idea is to know what to do and how to clear that energy so it stops making you a target. Tony gives a few examples of how to address that energy so it is not going to be a problem in the future If you are looking for more answers on this topic listen in and discover more in this podcast.This Meditation only podcast channel with Tony and his Tuning Forks:https://raisingyourspiritsmeditation.buzzsprout.comIn the meditation portion of this podcast we used the Imagination Frequency Meditation: The Imagination Frequency Meditation - 15 minSupport the showHere is a link to Tony's many classes coming up: https://lovehigherself.com/eventsSubscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/user/susanneandtony17 for Tony's Tuning Fork meditations.Podcast Library: https://raisingyourspirits.buzzsprout.comNew Meditation only Podcast Library: Raising Your Spirits Meditation Podcast (buzzsprout.com)Tony Gyenis conducts free weekly on-line Tuning Fork meditation on Fridays called Tune In with Tony which is a private Facebook group. Book your spot here: https://calendly.com/whitelight878/tune-in-with-tonyIf you would like to donate or support our channel to help keep us going we would so appreciate it: https://www.buzzsprout.com/1648510/supportTony's eCard: https://link.v1ce.co.uk/pbex/tonygyenis

We have explained in a previous daily Halacha (see the Halacha entitled "Lag BaOmer- Cutting Hair, Weddings, Music, and More"), that Sephardim do not take hair cuts until the 34th day of the Omer. This is unlike the Ashkenazim who take hair cuts from the 33rd day of the Omer. So the question was asked about a case that is occurring this year 5765 (2005). Would it be permissible for a Sephardi to take a hair cut on the 33rd day of the Omer if the 34th day of the Omer falls out on Shabbat? Maran writes clearly in Shulchan Aruch that yes in deed, it is permissible for Sephardim to take a hair cut on the 33rd day of the Omer when the 34th day of the Omer falls out on Shabbat. One would not have to wait until Sunday. For that matter, Chacham Ovadia Yoseph writes in Yichaave Da'at in Helek 4, siman 32 that it is permissible to get a hair cut on Friday at any time. One does not have to wait until the afternoon. One can get a hair cut in the morning if he wants. As a mater of fact, Chacham Ovadia Yoseph says a person can even get a hair cut the night before (33rd of the Omer at night) if there is sufficient cause. For example, one can take a hair cut the night before if he has a business appointment the next morning, or if he can not get a hair cut appointment during the day, or if he needs to attend a Simcha. The question was asked about children and ladies and whether or not they may take hair cuts during the Omer. Well, we discussed this before in Daily Halacha (see the Halacha entitled "Lag BaOmer- Cutting Hair, Weddings, Music, and More"), but let's just repeat them again today for the purposes of review. Ladies are allowed to take hair cuts at any time during the Omer. As for children, they too may take hair cuts at any time during the Omer. Only once the boy becomes Bar Mitzvah he may not take hair cuts until the 34th (for Sephardim). But girls and ladies of all ages are not bound by this rule, and they may take a hair cut at any time during this period. The question was also asked about beards. Is it permissible to shave a beard on the 34th day of the Omer? More specifically, would it be permissible to allow Sephardim this year to shave on the 33rd? Chacham Ben Tzion Aba Shaul in his recently published book 'Or L'Tzion 3' discussed the Minhag of the Kabalists who do not take hair cuts for the 49 days of the Omer. The Arizal (Rabbi Yitzchak Luria, otherwise known as The Ari) also says this, however Chacham Ben Tzion holds that this restriction only applies to hair and not to beards. Therefore, even if someone wants to follow the Arizal and the Kabalists and refrain from taking a hair cut throughout all 49 days, he may however shave on the 34th day (the 33rd this year).

In this episode, we continue exploring the laws related to moving items on Shabbat. We delve into the definition of a "usable item," how its size or weight affects its status, and when certain tools can be moved despite their primary use being for prohibited activities. Practical examples and key distinctions between different categories of items are discussed, helping clarify common real-life scenarios.

In this episode, we explore the halachic principles regarding permissible and prohibited discussions and actions on Shabbat, with a focus on protecting property from damage due to floods, fires, or other losses. We delve into the rules governing assistance from non-Jews, including indirect hints and explicit requests, and the distinctions between biblical and rabbinic prohibitions. Join us as we analyze these complex laws and prepare to transition into the study of Muktzeh in upcoming episodes.

In this episode, we explore the laws of speech on Shabbat, focusing on what types of conversations are permitted and which should be avoided. Delving into classical sources, we discuss the prohibition against discussing weekday activities, the nuances of speaking about mitzvot, and whether discussing post-Yom Kippur meals is acceptable. Additionally, we examine the halachic perspective on speaking about financial matters and indirect requests to non-Jews. Tune in for a deep dive into how our words shape the sanctity of Shabbat.

Many people either fall into Gheebah carelessly or misunderstand when it is allowed.  Are you sure you are not crossing the line? In the final session of Al-Manāhil al-Ḥisān fī Durūs Ramaḍān, Ustadh Abdulrahman Hassan continues the crucial discussion on the dangers of Gheebah (backbiting).  Besides being a grave sin in the sight of Allah, it is also an injustice to the wronged individual. It will not be forgiven until their rights are fully restored. However, in rare cases, Gheebah is permitted, and Ustadh clarifies these strict conditions in this video.  Watch now to protect yourself from this destructive sin. Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/amauofficial/ Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/AMAU Telegram: https://t.me/amauofficial YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/amauofficial/ Twitter: https://twitter.com/amauofficial/ iTunes: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/al-madrasatu-al-umariyyah/id1524526782 Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/08NJC1pIA0maaF6aKqZL4N #ramadanspecial #ramadan2025 #fasting #IslamicKnowledge #UstadhAbdulrahmanHassan #islamicreminder #IslamicStudies #ramadanfasting #IslamicLectures #Day18 #sins #MuslimEducation #gheebat #backbiting

The Perfect Will of God vs. The Permissible Will of God • Sunday Service Website: www.PastorTodd.org To Give: www.ToddCoconato.com/give   The Perfect Will of God vs. The Permissible Will of God: Seeking His Heart Above All Else As believers, we often hear about the “will of God,” but what does that truly mean? Scripture reveals that there is a difference between God's perfect will—His ultimate, sovereign plan—and His permissible will—what He allows due to human free will, even when it is not His best for us. The key to walking in victory, fulfillment, and divine purpose is seeking God's perfect will and not settling for what He merely allows. Let us dive into Scripture to understand these two aspects of God's will and why it is so important to seek His heart fully. 1. God's Perfect Will: His Sovereign, Best Plan for Us Romans 12:2 (NKJV) “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what is that good and acceptable and perfect will of God.”   Jeremiah 29:11 (NKJV) “For I know the thoughts that I think toward you, says the Lord, thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope.”   Matthew 6:33 (NKJV) “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added to you.”   Proverbs 3:5-6 (NKJV) “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge Him, and He shall direct your paths.”   2. God's Permissible Will: What He Allows, but Not His Best Psalm 106:13-15 (NKJV) “They soon forgot His works; they did not wait for His counsel, but lusted exceedingly in the wilderness, and tested God in the desert. And He gave them their request, but sent leanness into their soul.”   1 Samuel 8:6-7 (NKJV) “But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, ‘Give us a king to judge us.' So Samuel prayed to the Lord. And the Lord said to Samuel, ‘Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them.'”   Numbers 22:12-13, 19-22 (NKJV) “And God said to Balaam, ‘You shall not go with them; you shall not curse the people, for they are blessed.' So Balaam rose in the morning and said to the princes of Balak, ‘Go back to your land, for the Lord has refused to give me permission to go with you.'” (v. 19-22) “Now therefore, please, you also stay here tonight, that I may know what more the Lord will say to me.” …Then God's anger was aroused because he went, and the Angel of the Lord took His stand in the way as an adversary against him.”   3. Why We Must Seek God's Perfect Will Ephesians 5:17 (NKJV) “Therefore do not be unwise, but understand what the will of the Lord is.”   Colossians 1:9 (NKJV) “For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding.”   John 4:34 (NKJV) “Jesus said to them, ‘My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to finish His work.'”   Conclusion: The Importance of Seeking His Perfect Will Many settle for God's permissible will, pursuing relationships, jobs, or ministries that God allows but that are not His perfect plan. While He may not stop us, the consequences can be costly. We must: 1. Seek Him first (Matthew 6:33). 2. Renew our minds to discern His will (Romans 12:2). 3. Trust Him fully (Proverbs 3:5-6). 4. Pray for wisdom and revelation (Colossians 1:9). By doing this, we will walk in God's perfect will, fulfilling His best for our lives! Let us not be like Israel, demanding what God allows but missing His best. Instead, let us seek His heart and live in His perfect plan!

1 section- forms of straining of wine and eggs that would be allowed, and related laws

Is it permissible for a person to provide a charity collector – either a poor person, or a solicitor for an institution – with information regarding a wealthy, generous person and advise that he approach him for a donation? At first glance, providing this information violates the admonition in the Book of Mishlei (27:14), "He who blesses his fellow with a loud voice early each morning – this is considered a curse for him." Rashi (classic commentator, France, 1040-1105) in Baba Mesia 23B, explains that information one spreads about his fellow's wealth is deemed a "curse" because corrupt people will now attempt to steal from that wealthy individual. A person should therefore keep such information private, rather than allow it to reach the ears of potential criminals. Likewise, Rashi adds, if people hear that a certain individual is a man of wealth, they may flock to his home and invite themselves in, thereby depleting his resources. Seemingly, then, we should forbid divulging information about a person's wealth to a charity collector. In truth, however, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein (Russia-New York, 1895-1986) in Igrot Moshe, Y"D, Helek 3, siman 95, ruled that the concerns addressed in this verse do not apply in the context of a charity collector. According to Rashi's first interpretation, the concern is that dishonest people and thieves will devise schemes to steal the wealthy man's money. This concern does not arise in the case of upright, decent people, and therefore if a person knows that the charity collector is honest and decent, he may refer him to a potential donor. As for Rashi's second explanation, the concern is that people might invite themselves into the wealthy man's home and he would be too ashamed to turn them away. In the case of charity solicitation, however, there is no shame involved in refusing a request or giving a lower amount than the solicitor requests. In fact, Halachic sources mention that solicitors for a communal charity fund are allowed to approach all members of the community, and need not be concerned that a given member might feel too ashamed. Refusing a request or making a modest contribution is not looked upon as a source of embarrassment, and therefore we need not be concerned that a wealthy man will feel too ashamed to refuse the request of a solicitor. In conclusion, then, one may refer a charity collector to a wealthy individual, provided that he knows this collector to be an honest, decent and upright person.

If a minor or gentile immerses one's new utensil in a Mikveh, does this immersion suffice to render the utensil permissible for use with food? According to all authorities, an adult may allow a Jewish minor who has reached the age of Torah education (seven or eight years of age) to immerse a utensil under the adult's supervision. In such a case, the minor may even recite the Beracha before the immersion. If, however, a minor claims to have immersed a utensil without adult supervision, then, according to the Ben Ish Chai (Rabbi Yosef Chayim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), the child is not trusted and the utensil still requires immersion. Chacham Ovadia Yosef, however, distinguishes in this regard between metal and glass utensils. With regard to metal utensils, which require immersion on the level of Torah obligation, one should not trust a minor who claims he immersed it. Glass utensils, however, require immersion only by force of Rabbinic enactment, and one may therefore trust the child's claim and the utensil need not be immersed before use. As for gentiles, one should preferably not allow a gentile to immerse one's utensil on his behalf, because he would thereby forfeit the recitation of the Beracha. One cannot recite the Beracha over the immersion if a gentile immerses the utensil. Therefore, in order not to forfeit the opportunity to recite the Beracha, one should preferably immerse the utensil oneself. However, if a gentile did immerse one's new utensil in a Mikveh in front of the Jew, and even if the utensil fell into the Mikveh by itself, the immersion is effective and the utensil may then be used without an additional immersion. Summary: One may allow a child who has reached the age of Torah education (7-8 years of age) to immerse a new utensil under adult supervision, and the child may recite the Beracha. If a child claims he immersed a metal utensil privately, the utensil still requires immersion; if he claims to have immersed a glass utensil, it does not require immersion. One should preferably not allow a gentile to immerse one's utensil, but if a gentile did immerse the utensil in front of the Jew, it does not require another immersion. See Halichot Olam, Helek 7, pages 262-263

Weekly Q&A: Is it permissible to attend a Magic Show? (27:01:25) - Mufti Yusuf Moosagie by Radio Islam

What if someone unwittingly ate forbidden food with the intention of serving Hashem—and even used the energy derived from that food to fuel their Torah study and prayer? Can this energy rise to holiness and become clothed within the words of Torah and prayer?The vitality within forbidden foods is intrinsically tied to the three completely impure kelipot, meaning it cannot be elevated to holiness, no matter how pure one's intentions. This reflects the Torah's definition of assur—“tied up”—an objective reality that renders these foods inherently bound to impurity.Permissible foods, by contrast, draw their vitality from kelipat nogah and can be elevated to holiness when approached with proper intent. However, indulging in them solely for self-gratification temporarily drags them into impurity, leaving a lasting imprint even after a person realigns themselves with holiness. This residual impurity requires chibut hakever, the “beating of the grave,” to divest the body of its attachment to worldly pleasures.

If a person prepared tea with a teabag on Shabbat (following the relevant Halachic guidelines), is he then allowed to remove the teabag from the cup? At first glance, it appears that removing the teabag would violate the prohibition of Borer – separating – as one is removing Pesolet – an undesirable substance – from Ochel – the food he desires. The Halachic authorities discuss this question and rule that one may, in fact, remove the teabag from the cup, on the basis of a ruling of the Maharitatz known as "En Berera Be'lah," which means that the laws of Borer do not apply to removing a solid from a liquid. Just like one may, according to this position, remove an insect from a beverage on Shabbat, similarly, one may remove a teabag from a teacup. An additional question arises concerning the drops of liquid that fall from the bag into the cup during the process of removing the bag. At the moment when the teabag is hovering over the cup, drops of tea drip from the bag into the cup, which seemingly pose a problem of Borer. Even though by holding the bag over the cup one separates the Ochel (the drops of tea) from the Pesolet (the teabag), which is permissible, we should perhaps regard the bag as a Keli – a utensil. One of the conditions for allowing Borer on Shabbat is that the separation is done by hand, and not with a utensil. In this situation, however, one separates with a teabag, as the drops of water fall through the small perforations in the bag into the cup, seemingly in violation of the prohibition of Borer. Rabbi Moshe Halevi (Israel, 1961-2001) writes that one may remove the teabag from the cup even if drops of tea will then fall from the bag into the cup. He explains that even if we indeed regard a teabag as a Keli, it is certainly not a utensil made specifically for the purpose of separating, like a sifter or sieve. As such, the prohibition of Borer potentially applies in this case only on the level of Mi'de'rabbanan (Rabbinic enactment), since the Biblical prohibition applies only when using a utensil especially made for the purpose of separating. And when one removes a teabag from a cup, he certainly does not intend to have drops of tea fall from the bag into the cup, and thus this situation is one of "Pesik Resheh De'lo Niha Leh" – where one performs an action that will inevitably result in an action forbidden on Shabbat, but one has no interest in that forbidden action. "Pesik Resheh" is permitted on Shabbat when the prohibition involved was enacted by the Sages and is not forbidden on the level of Torah law. Therefore, since separating with a teabag is forbidden only by force of Rabbinic enactment, it is permissible to remove it from a cup even if drops will invariably fall from it. However, this line of reasoning suffices to permit removing the teabag only if one indeed has no interest in those drops of tea that fall from the bag. Some people, however, specifically want those drops in their cup of tea, as those drops have absorbed the flavor of the tea. This then changes the situation to one of "Pesik Resheh De'niha Leh," where one is interested in the resulting forbidden action, regarding which we cannot apply the leniency mentioned above. Therefore, the Shemirat Shabbat Ke'hilchatah (Rav Yehoshua Neubert, contemporary) rules that one should remove the teabag from the cup with a spoon, so that any drops that drip from the teabag will fall into the spoon and be discarded along with the teabag, such that no separation is done. This is also the ruling of Rav Yitzhak Zafrani in his Vayizra Yitzhak. Although those who are lenient in this regard and remove the teabag by hand have authorities on whom to rely, it is preferable to follow the stringent view and remove it with a spoon. Certainly, according to all opinions, it would be forbidden to intentionally hold the spoon over the cup of tea in order for drops to fall into the tea. Summary: After preparing tea on Shabbat, it is preferable to remove the teabag with a spoon, and not by hand. Some authorities permit removing it by hand, as long as one does not intentionally hold the bag over the teacup to allow drops to fall from the bag into the cup.

In this brief episode, Chris follows up on his recent informal debate with Marek Kizer with some thoughts on the concept of "pre-adjudication" and its implications for biblical justice. Biblical law requires that judges "inquire diligently" in matters of justice (Deut. 19:18). Pre-adjudication bypasses this requirement.

A re-upload of episode 176 featuring Jon & Jason chatting about medical marijuana and Christian use.

The Shulhan Aruch in Siman 675 establishes an important Halachic principle: "Hadlakah Osah Misva"-The act of lighting the Menorah fulfils the Misva, as opposed to "Hanaha Osah Misva"-the placement of the Menorah is the Misva. That is, it makes no difference if the Menorah was set up by a minor or others who are exempt from the Misva; one would not have to set it up again. This is also true regarding the Shabbat and Yom Tob candles. There is a discussion amongst the Poskim whether may light the Menorah in one place and then move it to another place. All agree that it is preferable to leave it in the place it was lit. Shulhan Aruch (675:1) clearly writes that the Menorah should not be moved after it was lit, because people will assume that he lit it for his own benefit like a lantern. The Shulhan Aruch also rules that one may not light the Menorah and hold it in his hands for the full half hour. This also appears that he is using it for his own benefit. Based on this, the Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) ruled that a sick person who is bedbound upstairs should not light the Menorah in his bedroom and then have it brought downstairs to his window. Rather he should appoint an agent to light for him downstairs. Hacham Ovadia writes that today the circumstances have changed. It is not such a severe concern that people will think he is using the Menorah for his own benefit, since we use a special Menorah designated for the Misva. Therefore, even if he moved around with it, nobody would assume that he is using it as a lantern. In the olden days, people used regular candles both for the Misva and for illumination, so it was easy to get confused. Therefore, if one moved his Menorah, his Misva is not invalidated. This is also the opinion of the Mishna Berura in Siman 675. In the case of the sick person, Hacham Ovadia would allow him to light in his bedroom and then have it brought downstairs, but he still prefers the option of appointing an agent. It is also preferable not to move the Shabbat and Yom Tob candles after they have been lit. (Although not preferable, one may move Shabbat candles as long as hee didn't accept Shabbat yet.) Although the Taz (Rabbi David Segal, Poland, 1586-1667) holds that Shabbat and Yom Tob are different, The Hida (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806) defends the position of those who equate the two Misvot. The way to remember this Halacha is that the Beracha for all these Misvot is "L'Hadlik"-to light-meaning that the lighting is the Misva. SUMMARY It is preferable not to move the Chanukah candles after they have been lit, but doing do would not invalidate the Misva..

Rabbi Breitowitz- Permissible Marriages by Mayanot

On this episode, we discuss how nonprofits can engage in advocacy during this time of transition and prepare for 2025. Attorneys for this episode Sarah Efthymiou Víctor Rivera Labiosa Melissa Marichal Zayas Show Notes   Post-Election Communications: Prohibition on Campaign Intervention ·       Keep in mind that 501(c)(3)s should never indicate that they support or oppose candidates for public office, whether in the past, present, or future. Permissible communications for 501(c)(3)s: Congratulating a newly elected official or thanking a former candidate for their hard work during the election. Discussing the organization's nonpartisan voter engagement. Commenting on the demographics of who voted or didn't vote. Encouraging a peaceful continuation or transfer of office. ·       Impermissible communications for 501(c)(3)s include: o   Suggesting that the organization attempted to influence the outcome of an election. o   Supporting efforts to draft a named person to run for office in a future election. o   Declaring that the organization or voters will hold an elected official accountable in the next election.   Transition Advocacy: Is it Lobbying? ·       Transition advocacy is a hot topic, especially after elections, and one of the most common questions we get from 501(c)(3) public charities is whether it counts as lobbying. The short answer? Sometimes, yes—but often not. ·       In general, lobbying involves efforts to influence specific legislation. For 501(c)(3) organizations operating under the insubstantial part test, advocacy for or against legislation qualifies may count as lobbying. ·       If an organization has made the 501(h) election—which allows nonprofits to maximize and clarify their lobbying limits—the IRS uses a different definition. Under the 501(h) expenditure test, lobbying breaks down into two categories: o   Direct lobbying: Speaking to a legislator and expressing a view about specific legislation. o   Grassroots lobbying: Communicating with the general public to express a view on specific legislation andincluding a call to action. ·       Under the 501(h) expenditure test, two key factors determine whether your activity qualifies as direct lobbying: o   Are you speaking to a legislator? o   Is the topic you're discussing considered specific legislation? If the answer to both is "yes," it likely counts as lobbying. ·       Examples of lobbying activities during transition period: o   Advocating about spending priorities o   Supporting/opposing nominations of new exec cabinet officials or judiciary o   Advocating for changes in laws or amending current laws o   Advocating for a new program – if would require new legislation ·       Important to assess what you're saying, who you're saying it to, and whether any exceptions apply.   Transition Advocacy: When is it Not Lobbying? ·       Some organizations may try to avoid engaging in lobbying activities so it's important to understand what their non-lobbying options are during this transition ·       During this period, organizations can try to get to know their newly elected officials. Meeting with these officials, without trying to influence any nomination process or any piece of legislation (including the budget process), does not count as a lobbying activity. ·       On top of that, nonprofit organizations can do the following: o   Recommend transition team members o   Get involved in the executive order process o   Develop relationships with these newly elected officials o   Talk about nominations that do not require the advice and consent of a legislative body (or a legislative vote) o   Actively participate in the rulemaking process §  Beware: it may count as a lobbying activity at the state/local level o   Take advantage of the 501(h) lobbying exceptions!   Resources Can We Say That? Post-Election Advocacy for 501(c)(3) Organizations Preparing for Change: How Nonprofits Can Shape Policy By Engaging Transition Teams Transition Advocacy: Is it Lobbying? The Advocacy Playbook Series

Question: I have a Bible question which I don't understand—would you mind teaching me? In a Zoom Bible study originating from a Hong Kong Ministry, the teacher who is teaching suggested it is permissible to worship and sacrifice to the LORD at the high places since the Temple wasn't built yet and is forbidden after the Temple was built:But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire (Deuteronomy 7:5); And ye shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their groves with fire; and ye shall hew down the graven images of their gods, and destroy the names of them out of that place. Ye shall not do so unto the LORD your God. But unto the place which the LORD your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put his name there, even unto his habitation shall ye seek, and thither thou shalt come: And thither ye shall bring your burnt offerings, and your sacrifices, and your tithes, and heave offerings of your hand, and your vows, and your freewill offerings, and the firstlings of your herds and of your flocks…. (Deuteronomy 12:3-6)1 Kings 3:2-3 said that Solomon offered 1,000 sacrifices to the LORD at the high place at Gibeon and after that God was revealed to him and accepted him, but in 2 Chronicles 1:5 Solomon actually went to the Tabernacle and offered at the brazen altar. So, did he do the right thing? Response: 2 Chronicles 1:3 tells us that Solomon, early in his reign and before the temple was built, worshiped at a high place. Verse 3 reads, “So Solomon, and all the congregation with him, went to the high place that was at Gibeon; for there was the tabernacle of the congregation of God, which Moses the servant of the LORD had made in the wilderness.” We know that the tabernacle was set up there. But, both Deuteronomy 7:5 and 12:3-6 clearly tell us that all the pagan materials are to be removed from the high place prior to any worship of the Lord. A “high place” itself is not a pagan location, except if the statues and the other things used in their rituals are there.Consequently, the reason Solomon worshiped at this particular high place was, as already noted, that the tabernacle was set up there. It was the same tabernacle that the children of Israel, according to the instructions given Moses, had constructed in the wilderness. Therefore, before the construction of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, the tabernacle was what God had chosen for the sacrifice and worship by Israel.It has been pointed out that Solomon's father King David had previously worshiped the Lord at this high place in Gibeon. First Chronicles 16:39 notes, “[David left] Zadok the priest, and his brethren the priests, before the tabernacle of the LORD in the high place that was at Gibeon….” The tabernacle was where the altar of burnt offering had been set up (see 1 Chronicles 21:29).Again, it was not the high place itself that made it a suitable place for the sacrifices, but rather a place cleansed of all pagan paraphernalia and with the tabernacle already set up there.

Why does Paul say all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? *previously aired To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

This week Sean and Scott continue the conversation about the morality of IVF. Don't forget to listen to Part 1, last week, when they defined and explained the nature of IVF and began the conversation about the moral permissibility of practicing it. This week, we uncover further differences and clarify the moral issues beneath the debate. ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Why does Paul say “all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable”? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? *previously aired

Why does Paul say all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do? To support this ministry financially, visit: https://www.oneplace.com/donate/1258/29

Is IVF ever morally permissible for Christians? And if so, what conditions must be met? Is it ever morally justified to freeze embryos? These are just a few of the questions Sean and Scott discuss in this first part of a two-part discussion on the morality of IVF. If you are looking for a substantive discussion about the case for and against IVF, you will enjoy this first part. Join us next week for part 2. ==========Think Biblically: Conversations on Faith and Culture is a podcast from Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, which offers degrees both online and on campus in Southern California. Find all episodes of Think Biblically at: https://www.biola.edu/think-biblically. Watch video episodes at: https://bit.ly/think-biblically-video. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to have on the podcast, email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu.

Why does Paul say “all things are permissible, but not all things are profitable”? What does it mean to be unequally yoked? Why is that such a big deal? How exactly are we saved? Can we lose it? How do I break strongholds when it comes to addiction? Are we allowed to sell things in churches? My family life is filled with verbal abuse. What can I do?

One may only use sechach which has grown from the ground (gidulei karka), is detached from the ground, and is not susceptible to impurity (eino mekabel tumea). Zip ties are generally made from a material which one may not use for sechach. One should not support sechach with a material which cannot be used for sechach. This principle is known as "ma'amid bedavar hamekabel tumea." If the sechach can stay down in a normal wind (ruah mesuya), and the zip ties are only used to ensure that the sechach does not move out of its place in a gust of wind (ruah she'eina mesuya), then zip ties may be used. If, however, zip ties are used to hold down the sechach and ensure that it does not move from its place even in a normal wind, then one cannot use zip ties to secure the sechach.

Everything is permissible in this life but not everything is beneficial. Today I talk about this notion in our everyday...

Halacha forbids deriving benefit from a Melacha (forbidden activity) performed on Shabbat. Thus, if a person cooked food on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, it may not be eaten. This prohibition was enacted by the Sages. As far as Torah law is concerned, food that was cooked on Shabbat is permissible for consumption; it was the Sages who enacted this provision prohibiting eating food that was prepared in violation of Shabbat. The Rabbinic origin of this prohibition yields important ramifications. Hacham Ovadia Yosef ruled that if food was prepared on Shabbat in violation of Halacha, but there are authorities who permitted food preparation in that fashion, then the food is permissible for consumption. Even though Halacha does not follow that opinion, and forbids performing the act in question, nevertheless, if the act was done, the food may be eaten. Since the prohibition against eating food cooked on Shabbat constitutes a Rabbinic, rather than Biblical, prohibition, it does not apply in situations of Safek (Halachic uncertainty). As such, if there is some question among the Halachic authorities as to whether the food was in fact prepared in violation of Shabbat, the food may be eaten. One example of this rule is the case of food that had been half-cooked before Shabbat, a situation known in Halacha as "Ke'ma'achal Ben Derusai." According to some authorities, if a food had been half-cooked before Shabbat, one who cooks that food on Shabbat has not violated Shabbat. Since the food was already edible, at least for some people, completing the cooking process does not violate the Shabbat prohibition against cooking. However, the Shulhan Aruch does not follow this view, and rules that fully cooking this kind of food constitutes a violation of Shabbat. Therefore, if a food had not been fully cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the stove or on the Blech on Shabbat to complete the cooking process. Nevertheless, if a person did place half-cooked food on the Blech to finish cooking, the food is nevertheless permissible. Since there are authorities who permitted cooking food in this fashion, the food may be eaten despite the fact that it was cooked in violation of the accepted Halacha. Thus, for example, if a person is a guest at somebody's home on Shabbat, and the host mentions that the food being served had only been half-cooked before Shabbat, and it was placed on the Blech in the morning to finish cooking, he may eat the food. Even though the host acted incorrectly by placing the food on the Blech, it is nevertheless permissible. Another example is soup that was reheated on Shabbat. The Shulhan Aruch rules that one may not reheat liquid food on Shabbat, even though it had been fully cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, one may not take Kibbehamda (soup with meatballs), for example, out of the refrigerator on Shabbat morning and put it on the Blech so it can be served during lunch. Nevertheless, if somebody did place a pot of soup on the Blech on Shabbat morning, it may be eaten. The Rambam (Rabbi Moshe Maimonides, Spain-Egypt, 1135-1204) held that reheating liquid food is permissible on Shabbat, because, in his view, cooking any food that has been cooked before Shabbat does not violate the prohibition of "cooking" on Shabbat. Halacha does not follow this opinion, and forbids reheating liquid food on Shabbat. Nevertheless, if one did reheat liquid food, the food may be eaten, in light of the different opinions on the subject. Hacham Ovadia (listen to audio recording for precise citation) also applies this rule to a case of raw food that one cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot (twilight) on Friday afternoon. The term Ben Ha'shemashot refers to the 13.5-minute period immediately after sundown, and it is uncertain whether this period should be considered daytime or nighttime. It is therefore clearly forbidden to cook during this period, as one thereby may be violating a Torah prohibition. However, food that was cooked during the period of Ben Ha'shemashot may nevertheless be eaten. This food has the status of Safek; there is a possibility that it was cooked on Shabbat, but there is also a possibility that it was cooked before Shabbat. Therefore, this food may be eaten, since it is uncertain whether or not it had been cooked on Shabbat. It must be emphasized, however, that it is certainly forbidden to cook during Ben Ha'shemashot; this discussion refers only to a case of someone mistakenly cooked during this period, in violation of Halacha. Summary: Generally speaking, food that was cooked on Shabbat in violation of Halacha may not be eaten. There are, however, several exceptions: 1) If food was half-cooked before Shabbat, one may not put it on the fire or Blech to finish cooking on Shabbat, but if he did, the food is permissible. 2) One may not reheat soup or other liquid foods on Shabbat, but if one did reheat liquid food that had been cooked before Shabbat, it may be eaten. 3) One may not cook during Ben Ha'shemashot (the 13.5-minute period after sundown) on Friday afternoon, but food cooked during this period may be eaten.