Jewish teacher or personal spiritual guide
POPULARITY
Categories
338 episodes with Rav
336 episodes with Rav
253 episodes with Rav
241 episodes with Rav
113 episodes with Rav
230 episodes with Rav
72 episodes with Rav
158 episodes with Rav
83 episodes with Rav
60 episodes with Rav
43 episodes with Rav
50 episodes with Rav
87 episodes with Rav
83 episodes with Rav
57 episodes with Rav
68 episodes with Rav
57 episodes with Rav
44 episodes with Rav
23 episodes with Rav
52 episodes with Rav
29 episodes with Rav
43 episodes with Rav
22 episodes with Rav
31 episodes with Rav
32 episodes with Rav
26 episodes with Rav
48 episodes with Rav
47 episodes with Rav
21 episodes with Rav
27 episodes with Rav
12 episodes with Rav
23 episodes with Rav
42 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
14 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
11 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
22 episodes with Rav
12 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
19 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
26 episodes with Rav
15 episodes with Rav
8 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
8 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
16 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
10 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
14 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
13 episodes with Rav
9 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
7 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
6 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
38 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
36 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
4 episodes with Rav
5 episodes with Rav
33 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
2 episodes with Rav
3 episodes with Rav
The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.
The dispute between Rabbi Natan and the rabbis regarding whether a secular slaughter requires intent has ramifications in the case of one who slaughters an additional animal during the slaughter of a para aduma (engaging in an extraneous activity). If slaughter does not require intent, the cutting of the second animal's simanim is considered a completed act of slaughter, and consequently, the para aduma is disqualified because an extraneous activity was performed at that time. Conversely, if slaughter requires intent, the unintended slaughter is not considered an act at all, and the para aduma remains valid. The disqualifications of shechita begin with the law of shehiya (pausing), which occurs when the slaughterer pauses between the slaughter of one siman and the next. A tannaitic dispute is analyzed regarding the duration of time that disqualifies due to pausing, questioning whether it is the time of an act of slaughter or the time it takes to examine the knife. Several amoraim define the duration of slaughter: Rav defines it as the time needed to slaughter another animal, while Rav and Shmuel dispute whether the disqualifying pause for a bird slaughter is measured by the time it takes to slaughter an animal or a bird. Additional opinions expand this duration to include the time required for physical handling of the animal, such as the time it takes to lower it to the ground or lift it and push it down. The details of the disqualifications continue with ikur (tearing the simanim instead of cutting them) and chalada (inserting the knife beneath the simanim or behind them). These flaws in the act of slaughter trigger a tannitic dispute between Rabbi Yeshevav and Rabbi Akiva over whether animals disqualified by an improper slaughter, such as shehiya, chalada, or ikur, are considered a treifa and do not impart impurity, or whether they are treated as a neveila and impart impurity through carrying. Ultimately, Rabbi Akiva reversed his original understanding and agreed with Rabbi Yeshevav that the status of these animals is like a neveila in all regards. A contradiction to the Mishna arises from a Mishna at the beginning of the third chapter, which lists a severed windpipe among the defects that define an animal as a treifa, seemingly contradicting our Mishna's ruling that such a defect is considered a neveila. To resolve this contradiction, four potential resolutions are proposed, two of which are ultimately rejected.
Bret Weinstein joins Rav Arora on The Illusion of Consensus to discuss dating, mating, sex, relationships, marriage, pornography, OnlyFans, dating apps and the collapse of courtship among Gen Z. Weinstein, an evolutionary theorist, author of A Hunter-Gatherer's Guide to the 21st Century and host of The DarkHorse Podcast, explains modern romance through evolutionary biology, including male mating strategies, monogamy, mate selection and the effects of contraception. The conversation covers Valentine's Day, sexual signals, promiscuity, long-term commitment, the rise of the “sex recession”, and new concerns around declining dating among young people. Rav and Bret also discuss Joe Rogan, Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Nick Fuentes, The Weeknd, Zayn Malik and Gigi Hadid while examining how pop culture, social media and technology shape relationships today. Subscribe to Rav's Substack to get podcasts straight to your inbox: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/
The Gemara continues evaluating the position that exactly half of a siman is considered like a majority (mechtza kerov). Two difficulties are raised from braitot concerning pausing after slaughtering half a siman, or a siman that was pre-damaged. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects the initial understanding of Rav's statement regarding shechita and concludes that everyone agrees 50% is not a majority. The original debate between Rav and Rav Kahana applies exclusively to the laws of Pesach, in a case where the population is exactly half ritually pure and half impure. The Gemara notes a repetitive phrasing in the Mishna regarding the rule that a majority of a siman is sufficient. It explains that one sentence is needed for regular slaughter (chullin) and a second sentence for sacrifices (kodashim), as neither could be logically derived from the other. Various textual proofs and linguistic analyses of the Mishna's phrasing are brought by five Amoraim, each proving in a different way that the first sentence deals with chullin and the second with kodashim. Study Guide A fundamental debate is introduced between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna leshechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina leshechita ela basof). Rava and Rav Yosef narrow the scope of the dispute, noting that everyone agrees in certain scenarios, but they differ over what exact case is actually the subject of the disagreement between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty from a Mishna in Para against the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that shechita applies from beginning to end. However, Rava refutes his difficulty and instead raises a counter-difficulty from that same Mishna against the opinion of Reish Lakish that shechita only takes effect at the final moment.
The Gemara continues the debate over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna l'shechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina l'shechita ela basof). Two further difficulties are raised against the latter opinion and are resolved. There is a debate about whether the shechita needs to be done in a single, continuous cut (shechita mefura'at) or can be done in two or three different spots along the neck. The Gemara raises two difficulties against those who require shechita mefura'at. These challenges are resolved. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav brings a ruling about chalada, a disqualification of shechita when the knife is hidden under the simanim. The Gemara tries to assess what he is adding which wasn't already stated in the Mishna in Chullin 32a. The second part of Rav's statement was that if the knife is under the hide, the shechita is valid. However, the beit midrash of Rav (Bei Rav) stated that it was unknown whether he actually permitted it under the hide. This statement by the scholars of his beit midrash led to several related questions that remain unresolved (teiku), such as hiding the knife under a cloth, under tangled wool, or concealing it during only a minority of the cut. A Mishna rules that slaughtering two heads at once or two people holding a single knife and slaughtering are both valid. However, completely severing the head in one instantaneous downward blow is invalid due to pressing (drisa). The Mishna qualifies this: if the person was actually drawing the knife back and forth, but it came off after just moving the knife in one direction, if the knife was long enough, the shechita is valid. If they slaughtered with a back-and-forth motion, even if the blade is very small, the meat is kosher. Two sources are brought to support the need for moving the blade back and forth when slaughtering.
The Gemara continues evaluating the position that exactly half of a siman is considered like a majority (mechtza kerov). Two difficulties are raised from braitot concerning pausing after slaughtering half a siman, or a siman that was pre-damaged. Ultimately, the Gemara rejects the initial understanding of Rav's statement regarding shechita and concludes that everyone agrees 50% is not a majority. The original debate between Rav and Rav Kahana applies exclusively to the laws of Pesach, in a case where the population is exactly half ritually pure and half impure. The Gemara notes a repetitive phrasing in the Mishna regarding the rule that a majority of a siman is sufficient. It explains that one sentence is needed for regular slaughter (chullin) and a second sentence for sacrifices (kodashim), as neither could be logically derived from the other. Various textual proofs and linguistic analyses of the Mishna's phrasing are brought by five Amoraim, each proving in a different way that the first sentence deals with chullin and the second with kodashim. Study Guide A fundamental debate is introduced between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna leshechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina leshechita ela basof). Rava and Rav Yosef narrow the scope of the dispute, noting that everyone agrees in certain scenarios, but they differ over what exact case is actually the subject of the disagreement between Reish Lakish and Rabbi Yochanan. Rabbi Zeira raises a difficulty from a Mishna in Para against the opinion of Rabbi Yochanan that shechita applies from beginning to end. However, Rava refutes his difficulty and instead raises a counter-difficulty from that same Mishna against the opinion of Reish Lakish that shechita only takes effect at the final moment.
The Gemara continues the debate over whether shechita takes effect continuously from the beginning of the act until the end (yeshna l'shechita mitchila ve'ad sof), or if it only takes effect at the very final moment (eina l'shechita ela basof). Two further difficulties are raised against the latter opinion and are resolved. There is a debate about whether the shechita needs to be done in a single, continuous cut (shechita mefura'at) or can be done in two or three different spots along the neck. The Gemara raises two difficulties against those who require shechita mefura'at. These challenges are resolved. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav brings a ruling about chalada, a disqualification of shechita when the knife is hidden under the simanim. The Gemara tries to assess what he is adding which wasn't already stated in the Mishna in Chullin 32a. The second part of Rav's statement was that if the knife is under the hide, the shechita is valid. However, the beit midrash of Rav (Bei Rav) stated that it was unknown whether he actually permitted it under the hide. This statement by the scholars of his beit midrash led to several related questions that remain unresolved (teiku), such as hiding the knife under a cloth, under tangled wool, or concealing it during only a minority of the cut. A Mishna rules that slaughtering two heads at once or two people holding a single knife and slaughtering are both valid. However, completely severing the head in one instantaneous downward blow is invalid due to pressing (drisa). The Mishna qualifies this: if the person was actually drawing the knife back and forth, but it came off after just moving the knife in one direction, if the knife was long enough, the shechita is valid. If they slaughtered with a back-and-forth motion, even if the blade is very small, the meat is kosher. Two sources are brought to support the need for moving the blade back and forth when slaughtering.
The Gemara asks whether the requirement to slaughter birds is a Torah law or a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Pinchas rules that it is only a rabbinic law. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his position but resolves them. The final difficulty is resolved by pointing out that this matter is subject to a Tannaitic debate, and the Gemara brings both positions. Although only one siman needs to be slaughtered in a bird, the Gemara asks if it can be any siman or specifically the gullet. Rav Nachman and Rav Ada bar Ahava disagree on this point, and difficulties are raised against both positions. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that cutting either siman is valid. Rabbi Yehuda requires that the veins in the neck (veridin) must also be cut during slaughter. Rav Chisda explains that this rule applies specifically to birds, and its purpose is to drain out the extra blood so people will not come to eat it, but it is not an essential part of the shechita obligation. The Gemara raises three difficulties against this explanation, but they are all resolved. If exactly half of a siman was slaughtered, there is a debate between Rav and Rav Kahana - do we say that since the majority is not unslaughtered, the shechita is valid, or do we say that since the majority has not been slaughtered, the shechita is invalid? The Gemara begins by raising difficulties against Rav's position that half of a siman is considered as if the majority is slaughtered and the bird is permitted.
Episode 190 May 21, 2026 On the Needles 2:45 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam Cuff Club Vol. 2 Socks (march) by Summer Lee, Seismic Yarn & Dyeworks Butter Sock in why did the frog cross the road and mini: To see what the chicken was doing Sophie Scarf by PetiteKnit, AVFKW Floating in Current and Wild Bloom in Raincloud– DONE!! On the Easel 7:19 Oil studies! On the Table 16:08 Buffalo Salad with Blue Cheese Toasts from I Dream of Dinner by Ali Slagle Buffalo Crudités With Blue Cheese Dip Recipe A Great "Happens to Be Vegan" Korean Meal at Home Sundays with Julia video library KIMCHI FRIED RICE WITH SCALLION SALAD from Small Victories DUBU JORIM (BRAISED TOFU) GARLIC-SESAME SPINACH Successful strawberry shortcake with buttermilk biscuit Unsuccessful sweet potato waffle Pan-fried tofu on repeat: marinate firm tofu sticks in 1/4c tamari or soy sauce, ¼ c sake, 3T rice wine vinegar, a splash or yuzu hot sauce (optional) for at least an hour or so. Pat dry. Coat with corn starch & corn meal (¼ corn starch + 3T corn meal). Pan fry. On the Nightstand 32:17 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate! You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below. The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Go Gentle by Maria Semple Dungeon Anarchist's Cookbook by Matt Dinniman (audio) On the Calculation of Volume IV by Solvej Balle, trans by Sophia Hersi Smith and Jennifer Russell The Other Half by Charlotte Vassell (audio) Once and Again by Rebecca Serle Beheading Game by Rebecca Lehmann How to Commit a PostColonial Murder by Nina McConigley Last Night in Brooklyn by Xóchitl González We Do Not Part by Han Kang, trans by E. Yaewon and Paige Aniyah Morris Time Shelter by Georgi Gospodinov, trans by Angela Rodel Yesteryear by Caro Claire Burke The Reservation by Rebecca Kauffman Gifted & Talented by Olivie Blake
The Gemara asks whether the requirement to slaughter birds is a Torah law or a rabbinic law. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Pinchas rules that it is only a rabbinic law. The Gemara raises three difficulties against his position but resolves them. The final difficulty is resolved by pointing out that this matter is subject to a Tannaitic debate, and the Gemara brings both positions. Although only one siman needs to be slaughtered in a bird, the Gemara asks if it can be any siman or specifically the gullet. Rav Nachman and Rav Ada bar Ahava disagree on this point, and difficulties are raised against both positions. Ultimately, the Gemara concludes that cutting either siman is valid. Rabbi Yehuda requires that the veins in the neck (veridin) must also be cut during slaughter. Rav Chisda explains that this rule applies specifically to birds, and its purpose is to drain out the extra blood so people will not come to eat it, but it is not an essential part of the shechita obligation. The Gemara raises three difficulties against this explanation, but they are all resolved. If exactly half of a siman was slaughtered, there is a debate between Rav and Rav Kahana - do we say that since the majority is not unslaughtered, the shechita is valid, or do we say that since the majority has not been slaughtered, the shechita is invalid? The Gemara begins by raising difficulties against Rav's position that half of a siman is considered as if the majority is slaughtered and the bird is permitted.
Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with second tithe funds before it fermented, and it ultimately fermented, it is treated as wine. His words pose a difficulty for our Mishna, which did not present such an option. Rabba establishes the Mishna in a case where it is clear that it will not ferment later, while Rava suggests that the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that everything follows the visual appearance (chazuta) at the time of the sale. Rabbi Elazar disputes Rav Nachman's understanding of the Mishna in Ma'asrot, holding that the dispute applies when it has not fermented, but once it ferments, everyone agrees it is considered wine. A braita brings the laws of purifying temed that has not yet fermented by connecting it to water (haska). Rava limits this rule, explaining that this applies only when the water of the temed was pure from the beginning and became impure after it became temed, but if it was impure from the outset, it does not. However, Rav Ashi rejects his ruling and argues that there is no logic to distinguish between the cases. The Mishna states that anywhere there is a sale (a minor girl, ketana), there is no fine for rape (whose law only applies to a young woman, na'ara), and anywhere there is a fine, there is no sale. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that a fine applies even to a ketana. A Mishna states that anywhere there is refusal (miun, for a ketana), there is no chalitza (for a na'ara), and anywhere there is chalitza, there is no miun. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says that this is also the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that miun applies even to a na'ara. A Mishna states that anywhere there is a shofar blast (tekiya), there is no havdala, and anywhere there is havdala, there is no tekiya. If a Festival falls on the eve of the Sabbath, you blow the shofar and do not say havdala. If it falls on the conclusion of the Sabbath, you say havdala and do not blow. The Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute the exact wording of the havdala.
Study Guide The Gemara clarifies which Tanna the Mishna follows regarding temed (grape-seed water). Rav Nachman in the name of Rabba bar Avahu explains that the dispute in the Mishna in Ma'asrot between Rabbi Yehuda and the Sages applies after it ferments, so our Mishna can align with the view of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Nachman said in the name of Rabba bar Avahu that if a person bought temed with second tithe funds before it fermented, and it ultimately fermented, it is treated as wine. His words pose a difficulty for our Mishna, which did not present such an option. Rabba establishes the Mishna in a case where it is clear that it will not ferment later, while Rava suggests that the Mishna follows the view of Rabbi Yochanan ben Nuri, who holds that everything follows the visual appearance (chazuta) at the time of the sale. Rabbi Elazar disputes Rav Nachman's understanding of the Mishna in Ma'asrot, holding that the dispute applies when it has not fermented, but once it ferments, everyone agrees it is considered wine. A braita brings the laws of purifying temed that has not yet fermented by connecting it to water (haska). Rava limits this rule, explaining that this applies only when the water of the temed was pure from the beginning and became impure after it became temed, but if it was impure from the outset, it does not. However, Rav Ashi rejects his ruling and argues that there is no logic to distinguish between the cases. The Mishna states that anywhere there is a sale (a minor girl, ketana), there is no fine for rape (whose law only applies to a young woman, na'ara), and anywhere there is a fine, there is no sale. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav explains that this is the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that a fine applies even to a ketana. A Mishna states that anywhere there is refusal (miun, for a ketana), there is no chalitza (for a na'ara), and anywhere there is chalitza, there is no miun. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav says that this is also the view of Rabbi Meir, but the Sages say that miun applies even to a na'ara. A Mishna states that anywhere there is a shofar blast (tekiya), there is no havdala, and anywhere there is havdala, there is no tekiya. If a Festival falls on the eve of the Sabbath, you blow the shofar and do not say havdala. If it falls on the conclusion of the Sabbath, you say havdala and do not blow. The Sages and Rabbi Dosa dispute the exact wording of the havdala.
Groundbreaking Study Reveals Psilocybin Can CRUSH Smoking Addiction | Dr Matt Johnson Psilocybin Beats Nicotine Patches in BREAKTHROUGH Smoking Trial | Dr Matt Johnson Johns Hopkins Scientist Reveals Psilocybin OUTPERFORMS Patches for Smokers | Dr Matt Johnson Matt Johnson joins Rav Arora on The Illusion of Consensus to discuss his new JAMA Network Open study on psilocybin, nicotine patches, CBT and smoking cessation. A Johns Hopkins psychiatry and behavioural sciences professor, Johnson has been central to modern psychedelic research, including work on psilocybin for addiction, depression and end of life distress. He explains why one psilocybin session paired with CBT showed higher six month smoking abstinence rates than nicotine patch treatment with CBT, and what that could mean for tobacco use disorder. The discussion also covers vaping, nicotine harm reduction, the UK Tobacco and Vapes Bill, addiction treatment, mystical experiences, emotional breakthrough, neuroplasticity, agency and why psychedelics may help people change entrenched behaviour. Rav and his guest examine both the promise and the risks of psychedelic therapy, including bad experiences, vulnerable patients, clinical safeguards and the future of FDA approved addiction treatments. Link to Matt's Paper: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2846155 Subscribe to Rav's Substack for exclusive content: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/
Mark Cuban joins Rav Arora on The Illusion of Consensus for a wide-ranging debate on DEI, wokeness, corporate hiring, race-based diversity goals, merit, quotas, and the backlash against progressive workplace policies. The billionaire entrepreneur, Shark Tank investor, Dallas Mavericks minority owner, and Cost Plus Drugs co-founder argues that businesses should cast a wider net for talent while still hiring the most qualified person, as Rav challenges whether corporate diversity pledges after George Floyd and Black Lives Matter became virtue signalling or a form of discrimination. They discuss EEOC data, Starbucks, Nike, JPMorgan, Pfizer, Microsoft, United Airlines, HBCUs, minority representation, universities, DEI departments, activists such as Ibram X. Kendi and Robin DiAngelo, and the Trump administration's push to dismantle DEI programmes. The conversation also revisits their previous disagreement over Covid mandates, mRNA vaccine side effects, public health ethics, Joe Rogan, pandemic policy, and whether the response to Covid created lasting mistrust in institutions. Cuban and Arora cover how business leaders navigate culture war pressure, shareholder interests, free speech, corporate virtue signalling, political polarisation, independent media, and the future of race, merit, and fairness in American companies. Subscribe to Rav's Substack for exclusive content: https://www.illusionconsensus.com/ 0:00 - Intro 02:29 — The Clash Begins 04:04 — Mark Cuban Defines DEI His Way 05:52 — “That's Not What DEI Means!” 08:29 — Are Racial Quotas Real? 12:47 — Corporate Virtue Signalling Exposed 21:13 — Should Race Ever Matter in Hiring? 29:34 — Diversity vs. Meritocracy 48:04 — Do Companies Really Even Follow DEI? 57:42 — Does DEI Actually Work? 01:21:31 — Race-Based Goals vs Pure Merit-Based Hiring 01:36:45 — Final Thoughts and Common Ground 01:38:39 — Arora challenges Cuban on campus censorship 01:41:24 — Cuban on discrimination from both political sides 01:42:59 — Why Cuban required Mavericks staff vaccinations 01:43:57 — Arora disputes community benefit of mandates 01:52:57 — Cuban's “herd immunity in three months” argument 02:05:02 — FDA internal disagreements over vaccine approval 02:05:31 — White House pressure and military mandates 02:25:00 — Comparing Covid and vaccine-induced myocarditis 02:36:23 — Infection fatality rate and serious adverse events
Já está no ar o novo episódio do podcast Rádio Decidendi, que aborda o Tema 1.299 do Superior Tribunal de Justiça (STJ), fixado pela Primeira Seção sob o rito dos recursos repetitivos.O precedente definiu que se aplica o óbice da Súmula 343 do Supremo Tribunal Federal às ações rescisórias propostas com fundamento em violação literal de lei quando se pretende desconstituir decisão transitada em julgado em contexto de interpretação controvertida nos tribunais. Com isso, o STJ reafirmou que a ação rescisória não pode ser utilizada para adequar decisões definitivas a entendimentos jurisprudenciais firmados posteriormente, mesmo quando a tese posterior tenha sido estabelecida em julgamento repetitivo.A controvérsia analisada pelo tribunal envolveu o reajuste de 28,86% incidente sobre a Retribuição Adicional Variável (RAV), paga a auditores fiscais da Receita Federal, e a possibilidade de compensação desse percentual com reposicionamentos funcionais previstos na Lei 8.627/1993. As ações rescisórias buscavam desconstituir decisões que haviam transitado em julgado antes da pacificação da matéria pelo STJ em 2013.Em entrevista ao jornalista Thiago Gomide, o professor e advogado Osmar Mendes Paixão explica os fundamentos do precedente, analisa a relação entre coisa julgada e precedentes qualificados e comenta os impactos práticos da decisão para o uso da ação rescisória no sistema processual brasileiro.Podcast O podcast pode ser conferido na programação da Rádio Justiça (104,7 FM – Brasília) às segundas-feiras, às 21h30; e aos sábados e domingos, às 8h30. O novo episódio já está disponível no Spotify e nas principais plataformas de áudio.
Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik, known simply as the Rav, was one of the greatest Torah teachers of the modern era. I had the privilege to hear him teach in person - and I was also there when his failing health began to take from him his most extraordinary gift: his precise, lyrical, and commanding voice. I still remember the moment he tried to speak - and could not. And yet, the Rav never stopped teaching. Through thousands of recordings, and through the vast body of his Torah now being published from handwritten notes, his voice continues to reach us - with clarity, depth, and urgency. What it meant to hear him is something I will never forget. What it means that we still hear him, in a different way, may be even more important. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (michael@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.
Slaughterers who failed to show their knives to a Chacham (Sage) for inspection were penalized, though the severity of the penalty differed depending on whether the knife was subsequently found to be smooth or notched. The teeth of a harvest sickle incline in one direction; therefore, if one used it to slaughter in the direction that cuts cleanly without tearing, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute its validity. However, Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that both agree the slaughter is invalid, and their actual debate is whether the animal is classified as a neveila (a carcass, which imparts impurity) or a treifa. The windpipe features a large ring at the top that encircles it entirely, unlike the lower rings which are C-shaped and do not completely cover it. The Mishna presents two opinions regarding the highest anatomical point where slaughter can be performed without being disqualified by hagrama (slanting outside the designated slaughter area). The Tanna Kama rules that the large ring must be completely severed while leaving a width of a thread of the top ring untouched. Conversely, Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda rules that as long as the majority of the windpipe is cut in the valid area, the slaughter is kosher, even if the slaughterer subsequently cuts above it into the area known as "the hat" (kova) - since the act was legally complete once the majority was cut. Rav and Shmuel explain that Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda also forbade slaughtering directly on the smaller rings, permitting it only between them since they do not encircle the entire windpipe. However, after challenging this with a contradictory braita where Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda explicitly permits slaughtering on the smaller rings, the Gemara concludes that Rav and Shmuel agreed with his view regarding the large ring but ruled against his lenient stance on the smaller rings. When Rabbi Zeira moved from Babylonia to Israel and permitted slaughtering on these rings, the Sages questioned why he did not maintain the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel, given the halakhic rule that a traveler must observe the stringencies of both their place of origin and their destination. Two resolutions are suggested, each presenting different exceptions to the rules of local custom. Ultimately, the Gemara notes that customs varied across different regions of Babylonia, and not all areas adopted this stringency. There is a dispute between Rav Papi and Rav Papa regarding the exact anatomical boundary for the highest point of the windpipe where shechita remains valid.
In the case of a person who doesn't send his knife to be approved by a Torah scholar, the shochet should be ostracized or, alternatively, removed from his position, depending on whose opinion or the specific circumstances. And "removing from his position" doesn't stop there - he can't sell his meat as kosher, and it is to be wiped with feces so that it can't be sold to non-Jews either. Also: 2 new mishnayot - 1: On attempting shechitah with a rounded sickle with rounded serration - it's a machloket whether that's permitted. 2. On where precisely to slaughter on the trachea. Plus, if the slaughtering were done in a lower piece of cartilage, then it's not kosher according to Rav or Shmuel, but then someone who should be their follower (or either) ate from that shechitah. Note the distinction between the leniency in the land of Israel compared to the stringency in Babylonia, and how one needed to navigate the various practices.
What does it take to build a serious Torah legacy while running a thriving dental practice in Manhattan? Reuven Mohl has spent the last decade doing exactly that — and the results are five published books, a growing body of scholarship, and a model for what it looks like to take your Torah life seriously without stepping away from the working world.In this episode, Reuven walks us through his upbringing in Manhattan Beach, Brooklyn, where his father Rabbi Oscar Mohl — a philosophy professor, Holocaust survivor, and talmid of the Baba Vredi — set the tone for a home where Torah and ideas were always on the table. From Yeshiva Flatbush to Yeshiva HaKotel to YU, Reuven shares how his years of learning shaped both his character and his career path into dentistry.We talk about the discipline behind building a successful practice, how he carved out time for serious learning between patients, and what led him to compile commentaries on the Haggadah, Megillas Rus, and Tehillim using the writings of Rabbi Eliezer Berkovitz and Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik.And in honor of Shavuos, we learn together. Reuven shares a beautiful lesson from Megillas Rus on the difference between din and lifnim mishurat hadin — and what Boaz's generosity in the field teaches us about how to show up at work, at home, and in life.Topics covered:Growing up with a philosophy professor father and a Holocaust survivor in the homeThe work-life balance reality of a dental careerHow to pursue serious Torah scholarship while running a businessBuilding commentaries using the Rav and Rabbi BerkovitzMegillas Rus and the obligation to do more than the minimumThe story of calling before Shabbos
Slaughterers who failed to show their knives to a Chacham (Sage) for inspection were penalized, though the severity of the penalty differed depending on whether the knife was subsequently found to be smooth or notched. The teeth of a harvest sickle incline in one direction; therefore, if one used it to slaughter in the direction that cuts cleanly without tearing, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel dispute its validity. However, Rabbi Yochanan clarifies that both agree the slaughter is invalid, and their actual debate is whether the animal is classified as a neveila (a carcass, which imparts impurity) or a treifa. The windpipe features a large ring at the top that encircles it entirely, unlike the lower rings which are C-shaped and do not completely cover it. The Mishna presents two opinions regarding the highest anatomical point where slaughter can be performed without being disqualified by hagrama (slanting outside the designated slaughter area). The Tanna Kama rules that the large ring must be completely severed while leaving a width of a thread of the top ring untouched. Conversely, Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda rules that as long as the majority of the windpipe is cut in the valid area, the slaughter is kosher, even if the slaughterer subsequently cuts above it into the area known as "the hat" (kova) - since the act was legally complete once the majority was cut. Rav and Shmuel explain that Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda also forbade slaughtering directly on the smaller rings, permitting it only between them since they do not encircle the entire windpipe. However, after challenging this with a contradictory braita where Rabbi Yossi b'Rabbi Yehuda explicitly permits slaughtering on the smaller rings, the Gemara concludes that Rav and Shmuel agreed with his view regarding the large ring but ruled against his lenient stance on the smaller rings. When Rabbi Zeira moved from Babylonia to Israel and permitted slaughtering on these rings, the Sages questioned why he did not maintain the stringencies of Rav and Shmuel, given the halakhic rule that a traveler must observe the stringencies of both their place of origin and their destination. Two resolutions are suggested, each presenting different exceptions to the rules of local custom. Ultimately, the Gemara notes that customs varied across different regions of Babylonia, and not all areas adopted this stringency. There is a dispute between Rav Papi and Rav Papa regarding the exact anatomical boundary for the highest point of the windpipe where shechita remains valid.
Être le fils d un Rav by Rav David Touitou
Have any questions, insights, or feedback? Send me a text!Length: 2 hours 19 minutesSynopsis: This morning (5/17/26), in my last YBT Sunday Shiur of the season, I gave an updated version of my Judaism Demystified episode titled "Can God Do Anything/Everything? Can God Do the Impossible?" The shiur had three parts: (1) in the first hour of the shiur, I presented seven approaches to answering the question, "Can God create a rock He can't lift?" largely based on firsthand sources in the Rishonim; (2) I raise and respond to the two most common objections to the approach of these Rishonim; (3) I share my current understanding of why the Rambam broaches this topic as part of his discussion of theodicy. If you've seen or listened to a treatment of this topic before, I guarantee you'll still gain new insights, and if this is your first time thinking about this question, prepare yourself for a wild ride!-----מקורות:R. Norman Lamm, Eulogy for the Ravספר החינוך - הקדמהרמב"ם - מורה הנבוכים ג:יב,טור' משה נרבוני - פירוש למורה ג:טורס"ג - אמונות ודעות ב:יגש"ע או"ח רל:אמאירי - משלי יד:טורשב"א - שו"ת ד:רלדר' יוסף אלבו - ספר העיקרים א:כב; ג:כהרמב"ן - הויכוחMarc B. Shapiro, The Limits of Orthodox Theology, pp.Rabbi Netanel Wiederblank, Illuminating Jewish Thought pp.232-234שם טוב - פירוש למורה ג:טו-----The Torah content for this month has been sponsored by Meir Areman, l'zeicher nishmas Zelda bas Ziesel, his grandmother, whose yahrzeit is on the 21st of Sivan.-----If you've gained from what you've learned here, please consider supporting my work via Patreon, Venmo, Zelle, or PayPal — links below. Even a small contribution helps cover production costs and gives me the freedom to create more Torah content. To sponsor a day's or week's worth of content, or to inquire about tutoring or teaching, reach me at rabbischneeweiss at gmail. Thank you for listening, reading, and supporting my efforts to make Torah ideas available and accessible to everyone.Patreon | [Venmo: @Matt-Schneeweiss] | [Zelle/PayPal: mattschneeweiss at gmail]Substack | YouTube | YUTorah | InstagramPodcasts: The Stoic Jew | Machshavah Lab | The Mishlei Podcast | Rambam Bekius | The Tefilah PodcastWhatsApp Content Hub | Old Blog | Amazon Wishlist
If somebdoy shechts on shabbos his schita is kosher,Rav said he can't eat in on shabbos and its according to Reb yehuda the gemara try's to prove how we know its rebbe Yehudah
The Mishna rules that if one slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the slaughter is valid. However, Rav asserts that the meat may not be eaten on that Shabbat, even raw. The Sages in the Yeshiva explained that Rav's position accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the laws of Shabbat, and the Gemara attempts to identify which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehuda serves as the basis for this. Rabbi Abba suggests it refers to Rabbi Yehuda's view on hachana -the requirement that an item be designated for use before Shabbat - citing the example of Rabbi Yehuda's prohibition against cutting up an animal that died on Shabbat to feed to one's dogs. Abaye rejects this, arguing that animals intended for food are considered inherently designated for slaughter for human consumption (but not for animal consumption) even while alive, citing laws of Yom Tov as proof. Although Rabbi Abba attempts to resolve the difficulty by employing the principle of breira (retroactive designation) to understand the Yom Tov law, this is rejected as Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the concept of breira. The Gemara attempts to find the source for the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold by breira. Initially, it attempts to prove this from a case involving the separation of teruma from wine, but after rejecting that proof, the Gemara derives it from Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding eruv techumim. Rav Yosef suggests the source is Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding broken vessels that were not broken before Shabbat; these are forbidden by Rabbi Yehuda if they cannot be used for their original function. However, this comparison is rejected because an animal can be considered "food" even before it is slaughtered. This discussion aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding liquids that seep out of fruits. The Gemara offers a third suggestion based on Shmuel's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda's view on liquids leaking from olives and grapes. Shmuel posits that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages that such liquids are forbidden to prevent one from intentionally squeezing the fruit; likewise, permitting meat from a Shabbat slaughter might lead one to intentionally slaughter an animal on Shabbat. This is rejected because Rav disagrees with Shmuel's interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda's position on grapes and olives; since the goal is to clarify Rav's own ruling, it cannot be based on a premise that Rav himself does not accept. Rabbi Sheshet suggests a fourth possibility based on Rabbi Yehuda's ruling on lamps. Rabbi Yehuda deems used lamps muktze because they are repulsive (mi'us); similarly, a living animal would be muktze because it cannot be eaten in its current state. This is also rejected, as the Gemara distinguishes between muktze due to repulsion and muktze resulting from a prohibition.
Kevin Sabet debates Matt Johnson on the Illusion of Consensus podcast with host Rav Arora, covering Trump's psychedelic executive order, ibogaine, FDA approval, Right to Try, drug scheduling, and the future of psychedelic research. Sabet, a former White House drug policy advisor across the Clinton, Bush, and Obama administrations, argues for caution around psychedelics, marijuana policy, commercial incentives, and overstated medical claims. Johnson, a leading Johns Hopkins psychedelic researcher, responds on psilocybin studies, addiction treatment, depression, safety protocols, REMS, and why accelerated research may still follow the evidence. The discussion also covers Joe Rogan, RFK Jr., Marty Makary, Jay Bhattacharya, ketamine clinics, MDMA, MAPS, cannabis rescheduling, veteran suicide, and the risks of turning experimental drugs into public policy too quickly. Subscribe to Rav's Substack to get episodes straight to your inbox: https://www.illusionconsensus.com Chapters: 0:00 - Intro 2:05 - Sabet's Objection to Psychedelics 10:00 - Matt's Disagreement with Sabet 13:15 - Psychedelic Research Quality 21:10 - Kevin's Rebuttal 24:00 - Was Joe Rogan Wrong On Ibogaine's Efficacy 32:50 - Ibogaine Safety Concerns 40:50 - Could The Executive Order Go Too Far 46:10 - Rescheduling and FDA Approval
Episode 189 May 4, 2026 On the Needles 1:48 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Anker's Summer Shirt by PetiteKnit Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect No Pressure shawl by Stephanie Lotven, Invictus Yarns Unafraid Sock Blank in Mauve Segue Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam Knitted knockers cascade ultra pima– DONE!! Gather hat by Tin Can Knits, Cascade 220 in Tutu– DONE!! 135-1 Limestone by DROPS design, Baa Ram Ewe Donegal Twists in Banshee and Dullahan Cuff Club Vol. 2 Socks (march) by Summer Lee, Seismic Yarn & Dyeworks Butter Sock in why did the frog cross the road and mini: To see what the chicken was doing Beary Cozy Gnome by Sarah Schira, Forbidden Fiber Co. Gluttony Sock in Yule Log, Must Stash Yarn & Fiber Perfect Must Match in natural, Walk Collection Tough Sock in Powder –DONE!! Sophie Scarf by PetiteKnit, AVFKW Floating in Current and Wild Bloom in Raincloud On the Easel 14:56 Portfolio prep CCRR art! On the Table 20:33 Crispy quinoa and asparagus salad with coriander cashew cream — Hetty McKinnon Runner Bean and Raw Asparagus Salad from Rancho Gordo Cornflake Choc Chippers I omitted a smidge from both the white sugar & brown sugar. Beef Broccoli stirfry from America's Test Kitchen, very similar recipe here. I used a little can of sake instead of beef stock–delicious! Sweet Potato bowls with beef (onion + orange bell pepper), avocado, cheddar, cilantro, chipotle sauce, and a little sour cream. On the Nightstand 29:26 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate! You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below. The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Alchemised by SenLinYu Second Death of Locke by V.L. Bovalino Nobody's Baby by Olivia Waite (Dororthy Gentleman #2) The Ending Writes Itself by Evelyn Clarke Whidbey by T. Kira Madden The Flatshare by Beth O'Leary Bingo 44:12 Starts friday may 22, ends Mon Sept 7 Need to post a photo of completed Bingo with #CCRRsummerbingo2026 to instagram or Ravelry. Get a blackout for a second entry.
The Mishna rules that if one slaughters an animal on Shabbat or Yom Kippur, the slaughter is valid. However, Rav asserts that the meat may not be eaten on that Shabbat, even raw. The Sages in the Yeshiva explained that Rav's position accords with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda regarding the laws of Shabbat, and the Gemara attempts to identify which specific ruling of Rabbi Yehuda serves as the basis for this. Rabbi Abba suggests it refers to Rabbi Yehuda's view on hachana -the requirement that an item be designated for use before Shabbat - citing the example of Rabbi Yehuda's prohibition against cutting up an animal that died on Shabbat to feed to one's dogs. Abaye rejects this, arguing that animals intended for food are considered inherently designated for slaughter for human consumption (but not for animal consumption) even while alive, citing laws of Yom Tov as proof. Although Rabbi Abba attempts to resolve the difficulty by employing the principle of breira (retroactive designation) to understand the Yom Tov law, this is rejected as Rabbi Yehuda does not accept the concept of breira. The Gemara attempts to find the source for the fact that Rabbi Yehuda does not hold by breira. Initially, it attempts to prove this from a case involving the separation of teruma from wine, but after rejecting that proof, the Gemara derives it from Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding eruv techumim. Rav Yosef suggests the source is Rabbi Yehuda's position regarding broken vessels that were not broken before Shabbat; these are forbidden by Rabbi Yehuda if they cannot be used for their original function. However, this comparison is rejected because an animal can be considered "food" even before it is slaughtered. This discussion aligns with Rabbi Yehuda's opinion regarding liquids that seep out of fruits. The Gemara offers a third suggestion based on Shmuel's understanding of Rabbi Yehuda's view on liquids leaking from olives and grapes. Shmuel posits that Rabbi Yehuda agrees with the Sages that such liquids are forbidden to prevent one from intentionally squeezing the fruit; likewise, permitting meat from a Shabbat slaughter might lead one to intentionally slaughter an animal on Shabbat. This is rejected because Rav disagrees with Shmuel's interpretation of Rabbi Yehuda's position on grapes and olives; since the goal is to clarify Rav's own ruling, it cannot be based on a premise that Rav himself does not accept. Rabbi Sheshet suggests a fourth possibility based on Rabbi Yehuda's ruling on lamps. Rabbi Yehuda deems used lamps muktze because they are repulsive (mi'us); similarly, a living animal would be muktze because it cannot be eaten in its current state. This is also rejected, as the Gemara distinguishes between muktze due to repulsion and muktze resulting from a prohibition.
Rav Nachman states in the name of Rav that meat is permitted if someone supervised the slaughter throughout the process. The Gemara questions why supervision is necessary, given the principle that most who engage in slaughtering are experts. It concludes that the case involves someone known to be ignorant of the laws of shechita who successfully severed the first siman (sign); however, this is insufficient to assume the second will be handled correctly, thus requiring supervision to ensure no disqualifying error occurs during the remainder of the slaughter. Rav Dimi bar Yosef asked Rav Nachman: If an agent is appointed to slaughter an animal or separate teruma (tithes), and the owner subsequently finds the meat slaughtered or the produce tithed, can we assume the agent performed the task and the food is permitted? Rav Nachman distinguished between the two: the meat is permitted, but the produce is not. He explained that we cannot automatically assume the agent performed the task, and must consider that a third party might have intervened. Regarding shechita, this is acceptable because of the presumption that most slaughterers are experts. However, regarding teruma, if a third party separates tithes without the owner's permission, the act is legally ineffective. The Gemara suggests that the question of whether we presume most slaughterers are experts is a Tannaitic dispute, but this suggestion is ultimately rejected. Although a deaf-mute, a minor, or a mentally incompetent person may slaughter under supervision, the Gemara infers from the Mishna's phrasing that one should not grant them an animal to slaughter ab initio. Furthermore, the fact that their slaughter is valid and the meat is permitted indicates that slaughtering does not require intent (kavana), a position attributed to Rabbi Natan.
Rav Nachman states in the name of Rav that meat is permitted if someone supervised the slaughter throughout the process. The Gemara questions why supervision is necessary, given the principle that most who engage in slaughtering are experts. It concludes that the case involves someone known to be ignorant of the laws of shechita who successfully severed the first siman (sign); however, this is insufficient to assume the second will be handled correctly, thus requiring supervision to ensure no disqualifying error occurs during the remainder of the slaughter. Rav Dimi bar Yosef asked Rav Nachman: If an agent is appointed to slaughter an animal or separate teruma (tithes), and the owner subsequently finds the meat slaughtered or the produce tithed, can we assume the agent performed the task and the food is permitted? Rav Nachman distinguished between the two: the meat is permitted, but the produce is not. He explained that we cannot automatically assume the agent performed the task, and must consider that a third party might have intervened. Regarding shechita, this is acceptable because of the presumption that most slaughterers are experts. However, regarding teruma, if a third party separates tithes without the owner's permission, the act is legally ineffective. The Gemara suggests that the question of whether we presume most slaughterers are experts is a Tannaitic dispute, but this suggestion is ultimately rejected. Although a deaf-mute, a minor, or a mentally incompetent person may slaughter under supervision, the Gemara infers from the Mishna's phrasing that one should not grant them an animal to slaughter ab initio. Furthermore, the fact that their slaughter is valid and the meat is permitted indicates that slaughtering does not require intent (kavana), a position attributed to Rabbi Natan.
Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Shmuel that if one heats a knife and uses it for slaughtering, the animal is not considered a treifa. Although the heat could potentially damage the animal, the sharp edge of the blade severs the windpipe and gullet before the heat from the sides of the blade can cause a burn. A question is raised regarding a person who strikes another with a hot knife, resulting in a leprous mark: is this classified as a boil (shechin) or a burn (michve)? The Gemara explores the practical halakhic implications of this distinction. Two sources are brought to resolve the matter - the first being the aforementioned statement of Rabbi Zeira - but the Gemara distinguishes between the cases and reaches no definitive conclusion. The Gemara then transitions to a discussion regarding benefit from knives used for idol worship, detailing when they are forbidden or permitted. It further addresses the status of meat slaughtered with a knife previously used for non-kosher slaughter, as well as the process for kashering a knife used on a treifa. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav notes that a slaughterer should maintain three distinct knives: one dedicated solely to slaughtering, one for cutting meat, and one for removing cheilev (forbidden fats).
There is a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Chanania bar Shlemia in the name of Rav regarding which practical skills a Torah scholar must master through repetition. The first opinion lists writing, slaughtering, and circumcision, while the second adds the knot of the tefillin, the sheva berakhot, and the tying of tzitzit. Rav Yehuda quotes two further statements in the name of Shmuel. The first is that a slaughterer must be expert in the laws of shechita; otherwise, the meat may not be eaten. Since meat can be disqualified for five specific reasons, an unlearned slaughterer might perform an invalid slaughter without realizing it. The second statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel is that a slaughterer must inspect the two simanim (the windpipe and gullet) to ensure they were properly severed. While Rav Yosef attempts to provide a proof for this requirement, Abaye rejects it. The Gemara discusses the status of meat that was not inspected, debating whether it is classified as a treifa or a neveila. Both positions are rooted in their interpretation of Rav Huna's principle: a living animal is presumed forbidden until it is proven that a valid shechita was performed, but once slaughtered properly, it is presumed kosher until proven to be a treifa. The Gemara then analyzes the second half of Rav Huna's statement, inferring that an animal remains kosher even if there is an unproven concern that it might be a treifa. This is illustrated by a case where a wolf takes an internal organ and returns it with a hole; we do not assume the hole existed prior to the wolf's intervention. Rabbi Abba challenges this from a ruling regarding food nibbled by creatures, where we fear teh hole where they are nibbling was a pre-existing hole from a snake who may have injected venom into it. To resolve this, Rav Huna distinguishes between matters of danger and matters of ritual prohibition (issur). While Rava rejects this distinction, arguing that stringency regarding danger should imply stringency regarding prohibitions, Abaye accepts the differentiation, citing proofs from the laws of impurity. After Rava rejects Abaye's proof and Rav Shimi raises a difficulty with Rava's position that the Gemara resolves, Rav Ashi concludes by bringing support for Rav Huna's position.
Rabbi Zeira says in the name of Shmuel that if one heats a knife and uses it for slaughtering, the animal is not considered a treifa. Although the heat could potentially damage the animal, the sharp edge of the blade severs the windpipe and gullet before the heat from the sides of the blade can cause a burn. A question is raised regarding a person who strikes another with a hot knife, resulting in a leprous mark: is this classified as a boil (shechin) or a burn (michve)? The Gemara explores the practical halakhic implications of this distinction. Two sources are brought to resolve the matter - the first being the aforementioned statement of Rabbi Zeira - but the Gemara distinguishes between the cases and reaches no definitive conclusion. The Gemara then transitions to a discussion regarding benefit from knives used for idol worship, detailing when they are forbidden or permitted. It further addresses the status of meat slaughtered with a knife previously used for non-kosher slaughter, as well as the process for kashering a knife used on a treifa. Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav notes that a slaughterer should maintain three distinct knives: one dedicated solely to slaughtering, one for cutting meat, and one for removing cheilev (forbidden fats).
There is a dispute between Rav Yehuda in the name of Rav and Rav Chanania bar Shlemia in the name of Rav regarding which practical skills a Torah scholar must master through repetition. The first opinion lists writing, slaughtering, and circumcision, while the second adds the knot of the tefillin, the sheva berakhot, and the tying of tzitzit. Rav Yehuda quotes two further statements in the name of Shmuel. The first is that a slaughterer must be expert in the laws of shechita; otherwise, the meat may not be eaten. Since meat can be disqualified for five specific reasons, an unlearned slaughterer might perform an invalid slaughter without realizing it. The second statement of Rav Yehuda in the name of Shmuel is that a slaughterer must inspect the two simanim (the windpipe and gullet) to ensure they were properly severed. While Rav Yosef attempts to provide a proof for this requirement, Abaye rejects it. The Gemara discusses the status of meat that was not inspected, debating whether it is classified as a treifa or a neveila. Both positions are rooted in their interpretation of Rav Huna's principle: a living animal is presumed forbidden until it is proven that a valid shechita was performed, but once slaughtered properly, it is presumed kosher until proven to be a treifa. The Gemara then analyzes the second half of Rav Huna's statement, inferring that an animal remains kosher even if there is an unproven concern that it might be a treifa. This is illustrated by a case where a wolf takes an internal organ and returns it with a hole; we do not assume the hole existed prior to the wolf's intervention. Rabbi Abba challenges this from a ruling regarding food nibbled by creatures, where we fear teh hole where they are nibbling was a pre-existing hole from a snake who may have injected venom into it. To resolve this, Rav Huna distinguishes between matters of danger and matters of ritual prohibition (issur). While Rava rejects this distinction, arguing that stringency regarding danger should imply stringency regarding prohibitions, Abaye accepts the differentiation, citing proofs from the laws of impurity. After Rava rejects Abaye's proof and Rav Shimi raises a difficulty with Rava's position that the Gemara resolves, Rav Ashi concludes by bringing support for Rav Huna's position.
This evening we search for how we will make it through hearing (the second half of) this week's Torah portion, BeChhukotai, and what saves us are the first three words. We then explore the final, climactic blessing God bestows on us, with three brief explanations from The Rav, Rabbi Yosef Soloveitchik, Rabbi Yitzchak Hutner, and Bailey Newman quoting Mr. Rogers. Michael Whitman is the senior rabbi of ADATH Congregation in Hampstead, Quebec, and an adjunct professor at McGill University Faculty of Law. ADATH is a modern orthodox synagogue community in suburban Montreal, providing Judaism for the next generation. We take great pleasure in welcoming everyone with a warm smile, while sharing inspiration through prayer, study, and friendship. Rabbi Whitman shares his thoughts and inspirations through online lectures and shiurim, which are available on: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5FLcsC6xz5TmkirT1qObkA Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/adathmichael/ Podcast - Mining the Riches of the Parsha: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/mining-the-riches-of-the-parsha/id1479615142?fbclid=IwAR1c6YygRR6pvAKFvEmMGCcs0Y6hpmK8tXzPinbum8drqw2zLIo7c9SR-jc Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/3hWYhCG5GR8zygw4ZNsSmO Please contact Rabbi Whitman (michael@adath.ca) with any questions or feedback, or to receive a daily email, "Study with Rabbi Whitman Today," with current and past insights for that day, video, and audio, all in one short email sent directly to your inbox.
Rav anan's Halacha that a mumar for avodah zara is mutar for schita and the loshon of behaima is it derogitory
Cours Halakha Time du Mardi 5 Mai 2026 (durée : 5 minutes) donné par Rav 'Haïm BENMOCHÉ.
Rav Huna differentiates between those living in exile in Babylonia and those living in other places regarding their nature. Rav Chisda (or Rav) is quoted as making a statement differentiating between gentiles who live in different places in the world, specifically in reference to whether or not they recognize God and the place of the Jewish people. However, after raising a difficulty, this statement is emended. A number of Sages extrapolate different verses to highlight the importance of Torah study by comparing it to sacrifices. One view explains that God treats those who study Torah as if they have physically offered sacrifices in the Temple. Another view goes further, suggesting that one who studies Torah has no need for sacrifices at all, effectively idealizing Torah study as a superior form of divine service. The Mishna compares one who sacrifices animals to one who sacrifices birds and to one who sacrifices mincha offerings, stressing that all sacrifices are equal before God—those of the wealthy and those of the poor—as the most important element in sacrifices is the intent. Sacrifices are offered to God and are not intended for God's benefit, but for the person bringing the sacrifice, which further highlights the importance of the person's intention rather than the outward action.
Episode 188 April 23, 2026 Bingo! Friday may 22 to monday sept 7 On the Needles 5:03 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect No Pressure shawl by Stephanie Lotven, Invictus Yarns Unafraid Sock Blank in Mauve Segue Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam Anker's Shirt by PetiteKnit, Cascade 220 Superwash Wave in Spectrum– DONE! Knitted knockers cascade ultra pima Gather hat by Tin Can Knits, Cascade 220 in Tutu On the Easel 11:00 More Museums! Denver Art Museum, National Gallery of Art–Washington D.C., The Phillips Collection, The Kreeger Museum, The VMFA in Richmond. On the Table 21:30 Vignarola (Roman Spring Vegetable Braise) via Good Things by Samin Nosrat Gnocchi with asparagus and miso butter from Simple Pasta https://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/1026745-skillet-gnocchi-with-miso-butter-and-asparagus Pepperoni Pizza Flowers Noodle Night! Cookbook Week - April 21-25, 2026 Corn flake-fortified chocolate chip cookies!! AWESOME. On the Nightstand 41:00 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate! You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below. The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! The Killing Stones by Ann Cleeves (shetland #9, perez and reeves #1) The Astral Library by Kate Quinn The Final Problem by Arturo Pérez-Reverte Memoirs of Hadrian by Marguerite Yourcenar, trans by Grace Frick Nights are Quiet in Tehran by Shida Bazyar, trans by Ruth Martin (audio) Brawler by Lauren Groff The Keeper by Tana French The Diamond Eye by Kate Quinn Theo of Golden by Allen Levi
Rav Huna differentiates between those living in exile in Babylonia and those living in other places regarding their nature. Rav Chisda (or Rav) is quoted as making a statement differentiating between gentiles who live in different places in the world, specifically in reference to whether or not they recognize God and the place of the Jewish people. However, after raising a difficulty, this statement is emended. A number of Sages extrapolate different verses to highlight the importance of Torah study by comparing it to sacrifices. One view explains that God treats those who study Torah as if they have physically offered sacrifices in the Temple. Another view goes further, suggesting that one who studies Torah has no need for sacrifices at all, effectively idealizing Torah study as a superior form of divine service. The Mishna compares one who sacrifices animals to one who sacrifices birds and to one who sacrifices mincha offerings, stressing that all sacrifices are equal before God—those of the wealthy and those of the poor—as the most important element in sacrifices is the intent. Sacrifices are offered to God and are not intended for God's benefit, but for the person bringing the sacrifice, which further highlights the importance of the person's intention rather than the outward action.
Conférence donnée par le Rav lors de son gala de soutien, le dimanche 26 Avril 2026 aux Salons Hoche.Vous pouvez faire un don de soutien sur le site : https://dons.ravbenchetrit.com/?campagne=campagne-reseauMerci,
Dr Matt Johnson joins the Illusion of Consensus podcast with Rav Arora to break down this weekend's Trump administration's psychedelic executive order and what it means for FDA approvals, rescheduling, and veteran access to therapies. As a leading Johns Hopkins University psychiatry professor, Dr Matt Johnson shares insights from decades of research into psilocybin, addiction treatment, depression, and end-of-life care. The discussion covers the political shift driven by figures like Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr., alongside the growing bipartisan support for psychedelic science. Key topics include breakthrough therapy designations, right-to-try pathways, ibogaine research, and the real-world implications for mental health and veteran suicide prevention. This episode explores how emerging data and policy changes could reshape the future of psychedelic medicine in the United States.Chapters:[0:00] Intro[2:30] Joe Rogan Bashing Nixon[5:20] Rav and Matt's Proposal[9:40] Calley Means' Pivotal Role[13:40] Matt Johnson Reacts To The News[18:36] The DEA Bottleneck Problem[23:20] Real Risks of Psychedelics[32:19] Right to Try for Veterans[34:37] Jay Bhattacharya vs Trump[39:40] Jealousy for Rogan[43:51] Do Psychedelics Improve Lives?[49:55] Next Steps for Trump Admin[53:42] End of Psychedelic Prohibition? This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe
Episode 187 April 9, 2026 On the Needles 1:25 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Wearing april showers socks by summer lee, rainbow stripe yarn from Must Stash Yarn Cougar Ridge Socks by Lori Wagner (52 Weeks of Socks Vol 2 from Laine Publishing), Forbidden Woolery/Fiber Co in Mystery Man– DONE! Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect No Pressure shawl by Stephanie Lotven, Invictus Yarns Unafraid Sock Blank in Mauve Segue Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam Anker's Shirt by PetiteKnit, Cascade 220 Superwash Wave in Spectrum Knitted knockers cascade ultra pima On the Easel 7:34 Master study sketches flip-through Good Ship Illustration Find your Creative Voice class Monet and Venice On the Table 15:43 Forgot to talk about what we had for meals! First: lasagna bolognese- omg. This is where they invented it. Recipe available to paying DALS subscribers Fav: pisarei e fasó: pasta e fagioli but with tiny bean sized gnocchi made with just flour water & breadcrumbs, borlotti beans, barely clinging tomato sauce. amazing . could not get recipe as it is a family secret. “A little butter, a little pork fat, a little this, a little that,” but do an internet search there are many options! Veggie dinner: kabocha/butternut squash with roasted cauliflower and special spice blend. Leeks with gorgonzola and hazelnuts. Cabbage and rice soup with beef crispies. Field Pea Puree with Wilted Kale | Brit In The South Sbrisolona from Food52 (because cant share one i received plus it is a GBBO type recipe) Kind of a cake, kind of a cookie. Cornmeal, almonds, BUTTER. Crumbly. Tried 3 officially then a 4th. Gelato cart. 1960s machine Trattoria Ai Due Platani My one novel recipe: Pumpkin bread with chocolate chips & walnuts from How to Bake Everything. On the Nightstand 29:47 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate! You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below. The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! Prophet by Sin Blaché and Helen Macdonald Audition by Katie Kitamura Nonesuch by Francis Spufford War with the Newts by Karel Čapek, trans by M. Weatherall House of Day, House of Night by Olga Tokarczuck, trans by Antonia Lloyd-Jones (audio) The Astral Library by Kate Quinn How to Read a Book by Monica Wood
The pasuk says that the Jewish people cried out to Hashem in tefillah during their harsh slavery in Mitzrayim, and Hashem heard their tefillot and remembered the treaty He made with Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and then He redeemed them. Although Chazal tell us many reasons for what brought about the ge'ulah from Mitzrayim—such as the emunah that they had in Hashem, the merit of the righteous women, the fact that they stayed separate in name, language, and dress, that they remained morally pure, and that they did not speak lashon hara—it seems from the pasuk that the final catalyst to bring the ge'ulah was their prayers. It is brought down in the sefer Chafetz Chaim al HaTorah that toward the end of the Chafetz Chaim's life, at a seudah shelishit on Parashat Shemot in front of many gedolim, the Rav said, "that it is known the Jewish people were finally redeemed from Mitzrayim because of their tefillot. And we have a tradition from the Navi Micha that our future redemption will be just like the one from Mitzrayim, as it says: כִּימֵי צֵאתְךָ מֵאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם אַרְאֶנּוּ נִפְלָאוֹת In Mitzrayim, everything was ready for the ge'ulah to happen. Moshe Rabbeinu was already born, and everything was in place. Yet it appears from the pesukim that without tefillah, they would not have been redeemed. All Hashem was waiting for was His children to cry out to Him that they wanted to be redeemed. For our ge'ulah, which we hope will come very soon, our tefillot are essential to bring it about. It could be that everything is ready, and all that is necessary is our tefillot to finish it off. Therefore, I am going to travel to the Gadol Hador, Rav Chaim Ozer, and ask him to tell Klal Yisrael to strengthen themselves in prayer for the ge'ulah, and then we will finally be zoche to be redeemed from this long and bitter exile." After seudah shelishit, the Chafetz Chaim told the chazan in the shul to go a little quicker so he could leave to go see Rav Chaim Ozer. In the end, the Chafetz Chaim's family convinced him not to travel due to the life danger it would pose at his advanced age. So the Chafetz Chaim told someone to send a message to Rav Shimon Shkop to tell him to go instead. However, due to technical difficulties, that did not happen either. After the Chafetz Chaim found out that nobody went to Rav Chaim Ozer, he said, "We just missed an opportune time for the ge'ulah." The message of the Chafetz Chaim at that time is actually a Midrash in Shemot Rabbah, which quotes Hashem as saying that when the Jewish people cry out to Me, their salvation will come. That is what happened by the burning bush, that is what happened during the days of Gidon, and that is what will happen for the final ge'ulah to take place. We are still in the month of Nisan, which Chazal tell us is a very opportune time for ge'ulah. There are major things going on in the world at large, with a focus on Eretz Yisrael. Who knows what kind of opportunity we have at this time. It is incumbent upon all of us to strengthen ourselves and pray for the ge'ulah shelemah. We put so much emphasis on praying for things that we need—like parnassah, refuah, and shidduchim. We cry and beg Hashem for salvations, but we must not put any less effort into praying for the ge'ulah shelemah. It is going to be our prayers that will produce the moment that all of Klal Yisrael has been anticipating since the beginning of time. The Mashiach may very well be here and waiting. It is up to us to make it happen. Let us put more focus in the Amidah on the berachot that have to do with the ge'ulah, and be'ezrat Hashem, Hashem will hear His children crying out to Him and give us the Mashiach Tzidkeinu b'karov. Amen
How has the role of being a Rav changed due to the war? What should a shul's policy be when a siren goes off during davening? How are people doing emotionally with the constant sirens, sleep deprivation and stress? What are the most interesting or unusual halachic questions that were asked during the war? Host: Ari Wasserman, author of the newly published, revised and expanded book Making it Work, on workplace challenges and Halachic Q & A on the Job Rabbi Avishai David – Rav of Kehillas Beis Tefillah Yonah Avraham – 12:00 Rabbi Dovid Gottlieb – Rav of Beis Kenesses Kol Eliyahu – 37:32 Rabbi Aryeh Leibowitz – Rav of Ahavas Shalom – 56:35 Rabbi Yehoshua Pfeffer – Rav of Ohr Chadash – 1:18:51 Rabbi Shalom Rosner – Rav of Kehillas Ohel Efraim – 1:37:37 Conclusions and Takeaways – 1:57:56 מראי מקומות
Michael Tracey, independent journalist, and Curt Mills, executive director of The American Conservative, join the Illusion of Consensus podcast for a sharp breakdown of US foreign policy and the Iran conflict. Michael Tracey and Curt Mills debate Trump's foreign policy ideology, Israel's influence, and the shifting dynamics of the American Right from Tucker Carlson to Megyn Kelly.Subscribe to Rav's Substack:https://www.illusionconsensus.com/Chapters:00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Guests07:15 Critique of Media Dynamics and Podcast Culture13:19 Discussion on Israel's Influence in U.S. Politics19:28 Analyzing Trump's Foreign Policy and War Decisions25:19 Concluding Thoughts on War and Media Responsibility37:34 Trump's Motivations and Historical Context44:00 Personnel Choices and Foreign Policy53:56 The Epstein Connection and Speculation01:00:05 Israel's Influence and Trump's Ambitions01:05:50 The Influence of Steve Witkoff on US-Israel Relations01:11:18 The Role of the Israel Lobby in American Politics01:17:17 Counterfactuals: Would Trump Act Differently Without Israeli Influence?01:23:17 Voting Dilemmas: The 2024 Election Landscape01:34:10 The Shift from Pence to Vance01:40:30 Rethinking the Trump Coalition01:48:07 Trump's Foreign Policy: A New Perspective01:58:02 The Evolving Definition of Neoconservatism02:10:16 U.S. Foreign Policy and Military Spending02:17:42 Nuclear Arms Control and International Treaties02:24:11 The Influence of Israel on U.S. Foreign Policy02:31:44 The Role of Media in Shaping Political NarrativesSupport The Illusion of Consensus!The Illusion of Consensus is a fully reader-supported publication. If you support the high-quality mental health and wellness journalism on this site, consider becoming a paid or founding member to receive exclusive articles, early-access episodes, and ask questions for future episodes. Or support The Illusion of Consensus with a one-time donation. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.illusionconsensus.com/subscribe
Episode 186 Monday, March 30, 2026 On the Needles 1:40 ALL KNITTING LINKS GO TO RAVELRY UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED. Please visit our Instagram page @craftcookreadrepeat for non-Rav photos and info Sashiko class with Amanda embroideredpanda at Love Fest Fibers Cougar Ridge Socks by Lori Wagner (52 Weeks of Socks Vol 2 from Laine Publishing), Forbidden Woolery/Fiber Co in Mystery Man Scultura by Cecelia Campochiaro, AVFKW Floating in Ripple Effect No Pressure shawl by Stephanie Lotven, Invictus Yarns Unafraid Sock Blank in Mauve Segue Simple Baby Cap 2 by Susan B. Anderson, plus Umbilical Cord hat by Jennifer L. Jones (S&B), Cascade 220 Superwash Wave in Spectrum – DONE! Vesna Tee by Ksenia Naidyon/Life is Cozy, Shel Designs Finito Fingering in Tutti Frutti and Shel Designs Suri Silk Lace in seafoam Bay Area Yarn Crawl 2026 On the Easel 19:39 Vacation sketching: green monkeys, butterflies, frogs, Caribbean Sea and sky. Bouquets to Art exhibit Alphonse Mucha exhibit Cartier exhibit in capitoline museum On the Table 31:09 Parma tour with Via Rosa and Jenny Rosenstrarch Dining in Barbados with ChefP! Bajan Roti Chicken curry Fried chicken with cauliflower & ginger mash, and kale/parm chips *Tempura flying fish! Banana “bakes” and cinnamon sugar beignets Coconut whipped cream with sugar cookie crumble, and mango coulis. On the Nightstand 46:32 We are now a Bookshop.org affiliate! You can visit our shop to find books we've talked about or click on the links below. The books are supplied by local independent bookstores and a percentage goes to us at no cost to you! The Queen of Swords by Jazmina Barrera, trans by Christina MacSweeney The Librarians by Sherry Thomas The Hero and the Crown by Robin McKinley Skandar and the Unicorn Thief by A.F. Steadman The Remarkable Retirement of Edna Fisher by E.M. Anderson The Raven Scholar by Antonia Hodgson (audio) The Archive of Unknown Universes by Ruen Reyes Jr. The Ten Year Affair by Erin Somers The Reformatory by Tananarive Due She Made Herself a Monster by Anna Kovetcheva (I think the cover art is Artemisia Gentileschi!) The Killing Stones (Jimmy Perez + Willow Reeves Book 1!!!) by Ann Cleeves Kin by Tayari Jones
After months of waiting and speculation, details about the All-American Halftime Show are finally out. Kid Rock joins the program to announce his headline role, and discuss his fellow performers Brantley Gilbert, Lee Brice, and Gabby Barrett. Plus, TPUSA Enterprise director Nick Cocoa announces a plan to bring Club America chapters to every Montana high school, and Luke Rosiak exposes government waste, audit obstruction, and corruption tied to the African Development Foundation. Be sure to catch the All-America Halftime Show Feb. 8 on Rumble, RAV, X, TBN, and more. Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com! Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
© 2020-2026 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
