Podcasts about seder

What if the secret to winning the Kentucky Derby wasn't pedigree or price—but poop, persistence, and a PhD-level understanding of biomechanics?Meet Jeff Seder, a Harvard-educated misfit who walked away from Wall Street and into the stables—armed not with a saddle, but with science. In this unforgettable episode of The Proven Entrepreneur Show, host Don Williams uncovers the wild, brilliant, and often hilarious journey of the man who turned the horse racing world upside down.Jeff didn't just challenge the status quo—he obliterated it. While the industry obsessed over bloodlines and million-dollar studs, Jeff was measuring heart size, stride efficiency, and yes, even the weight of horse poop. Laughed out of rooms and dismissed as a madman, he spent 30 years building a data empire in secret—until one day, he predicted a Triple Crown winner and proved them all wrong.This episode is more than a story about horses. It's about grit, innovation, and the kind of entrepreneurial madness that changes industries. You'll hear how Jeff:Built a 48-dimensional AI model before “AI” was coolInvented medical devices in a cornfield with MIT dropoutsTurned a $155K horse into a $50 million legendLearned the hard way that success takes decades—and a little chaosWhether you're a founder, a dreamer, or just someone who loves a good underdog story, this episode will leave you inspired, entertained, and maybe even a little obsessed with horse racing.Featuring:Jeff Seder (Founder, EQB.fyi)Hosted by Don WilliamsMentions: Ken Ramsey, U.S. Olympic Sports Medicine Committee, The New York Times, Belmont Stakes, Harvard, MITListen now and discover how data, doubt, and dogged determination can change everything.

Last month, the U.S. Supreme Court concluded its latest Term. And over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has continued to duke it out with its adversaries in the federal courts.To tackle these topics, as well as their intersection—in terms of how well the courts, including but not limited to the Supreme Court, are handling Trump-related cases—I interviewed Professor Pamela Karlan, a longtime faculty member at Stanford Law School. She's perfectly situated to address these subjects, for at least three reasons.First, Professor Karlan is a leading scholar of constitutional law. Second, she's a former SCOTUS clerk and seasoned advocate at One First Street, with ten arguments to her name. Third, she has high-level experience at the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), having served (twice) as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the DOJ.I've had some wonderful guests to discuss the role of the courts today, including Judges Vince Chhabria (N.D. Cal.) and Ana Reyes (D.D.C.)—but as sitting judges, they couldn't discuss certain subjects, and they had to be somewhat circumspect. Professor Karlan, in contrast, isn't afraid to “go there”—and whether or not you agree with her opinions, I think you'll share my appreciation for her insight and candor.Show Notes:* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Stanford Law School* Pamela S. Karlan bio, Wikipedia* The McCorkle Lecture (Professor Pamela Karlan), UVA Law SchoolPrefer reading to listening? For paid subscribers, a transcript of the entire episode appears below.Sponsored by:NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com.Three quick notes about this transcript. First, it has been cleaned up from the audio in ways that don't alter substance—e.g., by deleting verbal filler or adding a word here or there to clarify meaning. Second, my interviewee has not reviewed this transcript, and any transcription errors are mine. Third, because of length constraints, this newsletter may be truncated in email; to view the entire post, simply click on “View entire message” in your email app.David Lat: Welcome to the Original Jurisdiction podcast. I'm your host, David Lat, author of a Substack newsletter about law and the legal profession also named Original Jurisdiction, which you can read and subscribe to at davidlat dot Substack dot com. You're listening to the seventy-seventh episode of this podcast, recorded on Friday, June 27.Thanks to this podcast's sponsor, NexFirm. NexFirm helps Biglaw attorneys become founding partners. To learn more about how NexFirm can help you launch your firm, call 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com. Want to know who the guest will be for the next Original Jurisdiction podcast? Follow NexFirm on LinkedIn for a preview.With the 2024-2025 Supreme Court Term behind us, now is a good time to talk about both constitutional law and the proper role of the judiciary in American society. I expect they will remain significant as subjects because the tug of war between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary continues—and shows no signs of abating.To tackle these topics, I welcomed to the podcast Professor Pamela Karlan, the Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law and Co-Director of the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic at Stanford Law School. Pam is not only a leading legal scholar, but she also has significant experience in practice. She's argued 10 cases before the Supreme Court, which puts her in a very small club, and she has worked in government at high levels, serving as a deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice during the Obama administration. Without further ado, here's my conversation with Professor Pam Karlan.Professor Karlan, thank you so much for joining me.Pamela Karlan: Thanks for having me.DL: So let's start at the beginning. Tell us about your background and upbringing. I believe we share something in common—you were born in New York City?PK: I was born in New York City. My family had lived in New York since they arrived in the country about a century before.DL: What borough?PK: Originally Manhattan, then Brooklyn, then back to Manhattan. As my mother said, when I moved to Brooklyn when I was clerking, “Brooklyn to Brooklyn, in three generations.”DL: Brooklyn is very, very hip right now.PK: It wasn't hip when we got there.DL: And did you grow up in Manhattan or Brooklyn?PK: When I was little, we lived in Manhattan. Then right before I started elementary school, right after my brother was born, our apartment wasn't big enough anymore. So we moved to Stamford, Connecticut, and I grew up in Connecticut.DL: What led you to go to law school? I see you stayed in the state; you went to Yale. What did you have in mind for your post-law-school career?PK: I went to law school because during the summer between 10th and 11th grade, I read Richard Kluger's book, Simple Justice, which is the story of the litigation that leads up to Brown v. Board of Education. And I decided I wanted to go to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund and be a school desegregation lawyer, and that's what led me to go to law school.DL: You obtained a master's degree in history as well as a law degree. Did you also have teaching in mind as well?PK: No, I thought getting the master's degree was my last chance to do something I had loved doing as an undergrad. It didn't occur to me until I was late in my law-school days that I might at some point want to be a law professor. That's different than a lot of folks who go to law school now; they go to law school wanting to be law professors.During Admitted Students' Weekend, some students say to me, “I want to be a law professor—should I come here to law school?” I feel like saying to them, “You haven't done a day of law school yet. You have no idea whether you're good at law. You have no idea whether you'd enjoy doing legal teaching.”It just amazes me that people come to law school now planning to be a law professor, in a way that I don't think very many people did when I was going to law school. In my day, people discovered when they were in law school that they loved it, and they wanted to do more of what they loved doing; I don't think people came to law school for the most part planning to be law professors.DL: The track is so different now—and that's a whole other conversation—but people are getting master's and Ph.D. degrees, and people are doing fellowship after fellowship. It's not like, oh, you practice for three, five, or seven years, and then you become a professor. It seems to be almost like this other track nowadays.PK: When I went on the teaching market, I was distinctive in that I had not only my student law-journal note, but I actually had an article that Ricky Revesz and I had worked on that was coming out. And it was not normal for people to have that back then. Now people go onto the teaching market with six or seven publications—and no practice experience really to speak of, for a lot of them.DL: You mentioned talking to admitted students. You went to YLS, but you've now been teaching for a long time at Stanford Law School. They're very similar in a lot of ways. They're intellectual. They're intimate, especially compared to some of the other top law schools. What would you say if I'm an admitted student choosing between those two institutions? What would cause me to pick one versus the other—besides the superior weather of Palo Alto?PK: Well, some of it is geography; it's not just the weather. Some folks are very East-Coast-centered, and other folks are very West-Coast-centered. That makes a difference.It's a little hard to say what the differences are, because the last time I spent a long time at Yale Law School was in 2012 (I visited there a bunch of times over the years), but I think the faculty here at Stanford is less focused and concentrated on the students who want to be law professors than is the case at Yale. When I was at Yale, the idea was if you were smart, you went and became a law professor. It was almost like a kind of external manifestation of an inner state of grace; it was a sign that you were a smart person, if you wanted to be a law professor. And if you didn't, well, you could be a donor later on. Here at Stanford, the faculty as a whole is less concentrated on producing law professors. We produce a fair number of them, but it's not the be-all and end-all of the law school in some ways. Heather Gerken, who's the dean at Yale, has changed that somewhat, but not entirely. So that's one big difference.One of the most distinctive things about Stanford, because we're on the quarter system, is that our clinics are full-time clinics, taught by full-time faculty members at the law school. And that's distinctive. I think Yale calls more things clinics than we do, and a lot of them are part-time or taught by folks who aren't in the building all the time. So that's a big difference between the schools.They just have very different feels. I would encourage any student who gets into both of them to go and visit both of them, talk to the students, and see where you think you're going to be most comfortably stretched. Either school could be the right school for somebody.DL: I totally agree with you. Sometimes people think there's some kind of platonic answer to, “Where should I go to law school?” And it depends on so many individual circumstances.PK: There really isn't one answer. I think when I was deciding between law schools as a student, I got waitlisted at Stanford and I got into Yale. I had gone to Yale as an undergrad, so I wasn't going to go anywhere else if I got in there. I was from Connecticut and loved living in Connecticut, so that was an easy choice for me. But it's a hard choice for a lot of folks.And I do think that one of the worst things in the world is U.S. News and World Report, even though we're generally a beneficiary of it. It used to be that the R-squared between where somebody went to law school and what a ranking was was minimal. I knew lots of people who decided, in the old days, that they were going to go to Columbia rather than Yale or Harvard, rather than Stanford or Penn, rather than Chicago, because they liked the city better or there was somebody who did something they really wanted to do there.And then the R-squared, once U.S. News came out, of where people went and what the rankings were, became huge. And as you probably know, there were some scandals with law schools that would just waitlist people rather than admit them, to keep their yield up, because they thought the person would go to a higher-ranked law school. There were years and years where a huge part of the Stanford entering class had been waitlisted at Penn. And that's bad for people, because there are people who should go to Penn rather than come here. There are people who should go to NYU rather than going to Harvard. And a lot of those people don't do it because they're so fixated on U.S. News rankings.DL: I totally agree with you. But I suspect that a lot of people think that there are certain opportunities that are going to be open to them only if they go here or only if they go there.Speaking of which, after graduating from YLS, you clerked for Justice Blackmun on the Supreme Court, and statistically it's certainly true that certain schools seem to improve your odds of clerking for the Court. What was that experience like overall? People often describe it as a dream job. We're recording this on the last day of the Supreme Court Term; some hugely consequential historic cases are coming down. As a law clerk, you get a front row seat to all of that, to all of that history being made. Did you love that experience?PK: I loved the experience. I loved it in part because I worked for a wonderful justice who was just a lovely man, a real mensch. I had three great co-clerks. It was the first time, actually, that any justice had ever hired three women—and so that was distinctive for me, because I had been in classes in law school where there were fewer than three women. I was in one class in law school where I was the only woman. So that was neat.It was a great Term. It was the last year of the Burger Court, and we had just a heap of incredibly interesting cases. It's amazing how many cases I teach in law school that were decided that year—the summary-judgment trilogy, Thornburg v. Gingles, Bowers v. Hardwick. It was just a really great time to be there. And as a liberal, we won a lot of the cases. We didn't win them all, but we won a lot of them.It was incredibly intense. At that point, the Supreme Court still had this odd IT system that required eight hours of diagnostics every night. So the system was up from 8 a.m. to midnight—it stayed online longer if there was a death case—but otherwise it went down at midnight. In the Blackmun chambers, we showed up at 8 a.m. for breakfast with the Justice, and we left at midnight, five days a week. Then on the weekends, we were there from 9 to 9. And they were deciding 150 cases, not 60 cases, a year. So there was a lot more work to do, in that sense. But it was a great year. I've remained friends with my co-clerks, and I've remained friends with clerks from other chambers. It was a wonderful experience.DL: And you've actually written about it. I would refer people to some of the articles that they can look up, on your CV and elsewhere, where you've talked about, say, having breakfast with the Justice.PK: And we had a Passover Seder with the Justice as well, which was a lot of fun.DL: Oh wow, who hosted that? Did he?PK: Actually, the clerks hosted it. Originally he had said, “Oh, why don't we have it at the Court?” But then he came back to us and said, “Well, I think the Chief Justice”—Chief Justice Burger—“might not like that.” But he lent us tables and chairs, which were dropped off at one of the clerk's houses. And it was actually the day of the Gramm-Rudman argument, which was an argument about the budget. So we had to keep running back and forth from the Court to the house of Danny Richman, the clerk who hosted it, who was a Thurgood Marshall clerk. We had to keep running back and forth from the Court to Danny Richman's house, to baste the turkey and make stuff, back and forth. And then we had a real full Seder, and we invited all of the Jewish clerks at the Court and the Justice's messenger, who was Jewish, and the Justice and Mrs. Blackmun, and it was a lot of fun.DL: Wow, that's wonderful. So where did you go after your clerkship?PK: I went to the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, where I was an assistant counsel, and I worked on voting-rights and employment-discrimination cases.DL: And that was something that you had thought about for a long time—you mentioned you had read about its work in high school.PK: Yes, and it was a great place to work. We were working on great cases, and at that point we were really pushing the envelope on some of the stuff that we were doing—which was great and inspiring, and my colleagues were wonderful.And unlike a lot of Supreme Court practices now, where there's a kind of “King Bee” usually, and that person gets to argue everything, the Legal Defense Fund was very different. The first argument I did at the Court was in a case that I had worked on the amended complaint for, while at the Legal Defense Fund—and they let me essentially keep working on the case and argue it at the Supreme Court, even though by the time the case got to the Supreme Court, I was teaching at UVA. So they didn't have this policy of stripping away from younger lawyers the ability to argue their cases the whole way through the system.DL: So how many years out from law school were you by the time you had your first argument before the Court? I know that, today at least, there's this two-year bar on arguing before the Court after having clerked there.PK: Six or seven years out—because I think I argued in ‘91.DL: Now, you mentioned that by then you were teaching at UVA. You had a dream job working at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. What led you to go to UVA?PK: There were two things, really, that did it. One was I had also discovered when I was in law school that I loved law school, and I was better at law school than I had been at anything I had done before law school. And the second was I really hated dealing with opposing counsel. I tell my students now, “You should take negotiation. If there's only one class you could take in law school, take negotiation.” Because it's a skill; it's not a habit of mind, but I felt like it was a habit of mind. And I found the discovery process and filing motions to compel and dealing with the other side's intransigence just really unpleasant.What I really loved was writing briefs. I loved writing briefs, and I could keep doing that for the Legal Defense Fund while at UVA, and I've done a bunch of that over the years for LDF and for other organizations. I could keep doing that and I could live in a small town, which I really wanted to do. I love New York, and now I could live in a city—I've spent a couple of years, off and on, living in cities since then, and I like it—but I didn't like it at that point. I really wanted to be out in the country somewhere. And so UVA was the perfect mix. I kept working on cases, writing amicus briefs for LDF and for other organizations. I could teach, which I loved. I could live in a college town, which I really enjoyed. So it was the best blend of things.DL: And I know, from your having actually delivered a lecture at UVA, that it really did seem to have a special place in your heart. UVA Law School—they really do have a wonderful environment there (as does Stanford), and Charlottesville is a very charming place.PK: Yes, especially when I was there. UVA has a real gift for developing its junior faculty. It was a place where the senior faculty were constantly reading our work, constantly talking to us. Everyone was in the building, which makes a huge difference.The second case I had go to the Supreme Court actually came out of a class where a student asked a question, and I ended up representing the student, and we took the case all the way to the Supreme Court. But I wasn't admitted in the Western District of Virginia, and that's where we had to file a case. And so I turned to my next-door neighbor, George Rutherglen, and said to George, “Would you be the lead counsel in this?” And he said, “Sure.” And we ended up representing a bunch of UVA students, challenging the way the Republican Party did its nomination process. And we ended up, by the student's third year in law school, at the Supreme Court.So UVA was a great place. I had amazing colleagues. The legendary Bill Stuntz was then there; Mike Klarman was there. Dan Ortiz, who's still there, was there. So was John Harrison. It was a fantastic group of people to have as your colleagues.DL: Was it difficult for you, then, to leave UVA and move to Stanford?PK: Oh yes. When I went in to tell Bob Scott, who was then the dean, that I was leaving, I just burst into tears. I think the reason I left UVA was I was at a point in my career where I'd done a bunch of visits at other schools, and I thought that I could either leave then or I would be making a decision to stay there for the rest of my career. And I just felt like I wanted to make a change. And in retrospect, I would've been just as happy if I'd stayed at UVA. In my professional life, I would've been just as happy. I don't know in my personal life, because I wouldn't have met my partner, I don't think, if I'd been at UVA. But it's a marvelous place; everything about it is just absolutely superb.DL: Are you the managing partner of a boutique or midsize firm? If so, you know that your most important job is attracting and retaining top talent. It's not easy, especially if your benefits don't match up well with those of Biglaw firms or if your HR process feels “small time.” NexFirm has created an onboarding and benefits experience that rivals an Am Law 100 firm, so you can compete for the best talent at a price your firm can afford. Want to learn more? Contact NexFirm at 212-292-1002 or email betterbenefits at nexfirm dot com.So I do want to give you a chance to say nice things about your current place. I assume you have no regrets about moving to Stanford Law, even if you would've been just as happy at UVA?PK: I'm incredibly happy here. I've got great colleagues. I've got great students. The ability to do the clinic the way we do it, which is as a full-time clinic, wouldn't be true anywhere else in the country, and that makes a huge difference to that part of my work. I've gotten to teach around the curriculum. I've taught four of the six first-year courses, which is a great opportunityAnd as you said earlier, the weather is unbelievable. People downplay that, because especially for people who are Northeastern Ivy League types, there's a certain Calvinism about that, which is that you have to suffer in order to be truly working hard. People out here sometimes think we don't work hard because we are not visibly suffering. But it's actually the opposite, in a way. I'm looking out my window right now, and it's a gorgeous day. And if I were in the east and it were 75 degrees and sunny, I would find it hard to work because I'd think it's usually going to be hot and humid, or if it's in the winter, it's going to be cold and rainy. I love Yale, but the eight years I spent there, my nose ran the entire time I was there. And here I look out and I think, “It's beautiful, but you know what? It's going to be beautiful tomorrow. So I should sit here and finish grading my exams, or I should sit here and edit this article, or I should sit here and work on the Restatement—because it's going to be just as beautiful tomorrow.” And the ability to walk outside, to clear your head, makes a huge difference. People don't understand just how huge a difference that is, but it's huge.DL: That's so true. If you had me pick a color to associate with my time at YLS, I would say gray. It just felt like everything was always gray, the sky was always gray—not blue or sunny or what have you.But I know you've spent some time outside of Northern California, because you have done some stints at the Justice Department. Tell us about that, the times you went there—why did you go there? What type of work were you doing? And how did it relate to or complement your scholarly work?PK: At the beginning of the Obama administration, I had applied for a job in the Civil Rights Division as a deputy assistant attorney general (DAAG), and I didn't get it. And I thought, “Well, that's passed me by.” And a couple of years later, when they were looking for a new principal deputy solicitor general, in the summer of 2013, the civil-rights groups pushed me for that job. I got an interview with Eric Holder, and it was on June 11th, 2013, which just fortuitously happens to be the 50th anniversary of the day that Vivian Malone desegregated the University of Alabama—and Vivian Malone is the older sister of Sharon Malone, who is married to Eric Holder.So I went in for the interview and I said, “This must be an especially special day for you because of the 50th anniversary.” And we talked about that a little bit, and then we talked about other things. And I came out of the interview, and a couple of weeks later, Don Verrilli, who was the solicitor general, called me up and said, “Look, you're not going to get a job as the principal deputy”—which ultimately went to Ian Gershengorn, a phenomenal lawyer—“but Eric Holder really enjoyed talking to you, so we're going to look for something else for you to do here at the Department of Justice.”And a couple of weeks after that, Eric Holder called me and offered me the DAAG position in the Civil Rights Division and said, “We'd really like you to especially concentrate on our voting-rights litigation.” It was very important litigation, in part because the Supreme Court had recently struck down the pre-clearance regime under Section 5 [of the Voting Rights Act]. So the Justice Department was now bringing a bunch of lawsuits against things they could have blocked if Section 5 had been in effect, most notably the Texas voter ID law, which was a quite draconian voter ID law, and this omnibus bill in North Carolina that involved all sorts of cutbacks to opportunities to vote: a cutback on early voting, a cutback on same-day registration, a cutback on 16- and 17-year-olds pre-registering, and the like.So I went to the Department of Justice and worked with the Voting Section on those cases, but I also ended up working on things like getting the Justice Department to change its position on whether Title VII covered transgender individuals. And then I also got to work on the implementation of [United States v.] Windsor—which I had worked on, representing Edie Windsor, before I went to DOJ, because the Court had just decided Windsor [which held Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional]. So I had an opportunity to work on how to implement Windsor across the federal government. So that was the stuff I got to work on the first time I was at DOJ, and I also obviously worked on tons of other stuff, and it was phenomenal. I loved doing it.I did it for about 20 months, and then I came back to Stanford. It affected my teaching; I understood a lot of stuff quite differently having worked on it. It gave me some ideas on things I wanted to write about. And it just refreshed me in some ways. It's different than working in the clinic. I love working in the clinic, but you're working with students. You're working only with very, very junior lawyers. I sometimes think of the clinic as being a sort of Groundhog Day of first-year associates, and so I'm sort of senior partner and paralegal at a large law firm. At DOJ, you're working with subject-matter experts. The people in the Voting Section, collectively, had hundreds of years of experience with voting. The people in the Appellate Section had hundreds of years of experience with appellate litigation. And so it's just a very different feel.So I did that, and then I came back to Stanford. I was here, and in the fall of 2020, I was asked if I wanted to be one of the people on the Justice Department review team if Joe Biden won the election. These are sometimes referred to as the transition teams or the landing teams or the like. And I said, “I'd be delighted to do that.” They had me as one of the point people reviewing the Civil Rights Division. And I think it might've even been the Wednesday or Thursday before Inauguration Day 2021, I got a call from the liaison person on the transition team saying, “How would you like to go back to DOJ and be the principal deputy assistant attorney general in the Civil Rights Division?” That would mean essentially running the Division until we got a confirmed head, which took about five months. And I thought that this would be an amazing opportunity to go back to the DOJ and work with people I love, right at the beginning of an administration.And the beginning of an administration is really different than coming in midway through the second term of an administration. You're trying to come up with priorities, and I viewed my job really as helping the career people to do their best work. There were a huge number of career people who had gone through the first Trump administration, and they were raring to go. They had all sorts of ideas on stuff they wanted to do, and it was my job to facilitate that and make that possible for them. And that's why it's so tragic this time around that almost all of those people have left. The current administration first tried to transfer them all into Sanctuary Cities [the Sanctuary Cities Enforcement Working Group] or ask them to do things that they couldn't in good conscience do, and so they've retired or taken buyouts or just left.DL: It's remarkable, just the loss of expertise and experience at the Justice Department over these past few months.PK: Thousands of years of experience gone. And these are people, you've got to realize, who had been through the Nixon administration, the Reagan administration, both Bush administrations, and the first Trump administration, and they hadn't had any problem. That's what's so stunning: this is not just the normal shift in priorities, and they have gone out of their way to make it so hellacious for people that they will leave. And that's not something that either Democratic or Republican administrations have ever done before this.DL: And we will get to a lot of, shall we say, current events. Finishing up on just the discussion of your career, you had the opportunity to work in the executive branch—what about judicial service? You've been floated over the years as a possible Supreme Court nominee. I don't know if you ever looked into serving on the Ninth Circuit or were considered for that. What about judicial service?PK: So I've never been in a position, and part of this was a lesson I learned right at the beginning of my LDF career, when Lani Guinier, who was my boss at LDF, was nominated for the position of AAG [assistant attorney general] in the Civil Rights Division and got shot down. I knew from that time forward that if I did the things I really wanted to do, my chances of confirmation were not going to be very high. People at LDF used to joke that they would get me nominated so that I would take all the bullets, and then they'd sneak everybody else through. So I never really thought that I would have a shot at a judicial position, and that didn't bother me particularly. As you know, I gave the commencement speech many years ago at Stanford, and I said, “Would I want to be on the Supreme Court? You bet—but not enough to have trimmed my sails for an entire lifetime.”And I think that's right. Peter Baker did this story in The New York Times called something like, “Favorites of Left Don't Make Obama's Court List.” And in the story, Tommy Goldstein, who's a dear friend of mine, said, “If they wanted to talk about somebody who was a flaming liberal, they'd be talking about Pam Karlan, but nobody's talking about Pam Karlan.” And then I got this call from a friend of mine who said, “Yeah, but at least people are talking about how nobody's talking about you. Nobody's even talking about how nobody's talking about me.” And I was flattered, but not fooled.DL: That's funny; I read that piece in preparing for this interview. So let's say someone were to ask you, someone mid-career, “Hey, I've been pretty safe in the early years of my career, but now I'm at this juncture where I could do things that will possibly foreclose my judicial ambitions—should I just try to keep a lid on it, in the hope of making it?” It sounds like you would tell them to let their flag fly.PK: Here's the thing: your chances of getting to be on the Supreme Court, if that's what you're talking about, your chances are so low that the question is how much do you want to give up to go from a 0.001% chance to a 0.002% chance? Yes, you are doubling your chances, but your chances are not good. And there are some people who I think are capable of doing that, perhaps because they fit the zeitgeist enough that it's not a huge sacrifice for them. So it's not that I despise everybody who goes to the Supreme Court because they must obviously have all been super-careerists; I think lots of them weren't super-careerists in that way.Although it does worry me that six members of the Court now clerked at the Supreme Court—because when you are a law clerk, it gives you this feeling about the Court that maybe you don't want everybody who's on the Court to have, a feeling that this is the be-all and end-all of life and that getting a clerkship is a manifestation of an inner state of grace, so becoming a justice is equally a manifestation of an inner state of grace in which you are smarter than everybody else, wiser than everybody else, and everybody should kowtow to you in all sorts of ways. And I worry that people who are imprinted like ducklings on the Supreme Court when they're 25 or 26 or 27 might not be the best kind of portfolio of justices at the back end. The Court that decided Brown v. Board of Education—none of them, I think, had clerked at the Supreme Court, or maybe one of them had. They'd all done things with their lives other than try to get back to the Supreme Court. So I worry about that a little bit.DL: Speaking of the Court, let's turn to the Court, because it just finished its Term as we are recording this. As we started recording, they were still handing down the final decisions of the day.PK: Yes, the “R” numbers hadn't come up on the Supreme Court website when I signed off to come talk to you.DL: Exactly. So earlier this month, not today, but earlier this month, the Court handed down its decision in United States v. Skrmetti, reviewing Tennessee's ban on the use of hormones and puberty blockers for transgender youth. Were you surprised by the Court's ruling in Skrmetti?PK: No. I was not surprised.DL: So one of your most famous cases, which you litigated successfully five years ago or so, was Bostock v. Clayton County, in which the Court held that Title VII does apply to protect transgender individuals—and Bostock figures significantly in the Skrmetti opinions. Why were you surprised by Skrmetti given that you had won this victory in Bostock, which you could argue, in terms of just the logic of it, does carry over somewhat?PK: Well, I want to be very precise: I didn't actually litigate Bostock. There were three cases that were put together….DL: Oh yes—you handled Zarda.PK: I represented Don Zarda, who was a gay man, so I did not argue the transgender part of the case at all. Fortuitously enough, David Cole argued that part of the case, and David Cole was actually the first person I had dinner with as a freshman at Yale College, when I started college, because he was the roommate of somebody I debated against in high school. So David and I went to law school together, went to college together, and had classes together. We've been friends now for almost 50 years, which is scary—I think for 48 years we've been friends—and he argued that part of the case.So here's what surprised me about what the Supreme Court did in Skrmetti. Given where the Court wanted to come out, the more intellectually honest way to get there would've been to say, “Yes, of course this is because of sex; there is sex discrimination going on here. But even applying intermediate scrutiny, we think that Tennessee's law should survive intermediate scrutiny.” That would've been an intellectually honest way to get to where the Court got.Instead, they did this weird sort of, “Well, the word ‘sex' isn't in the Fourteenth Amendment, but it's in Title VII.” But that makes no sense at all, because for none of the sex-discrimination cases that the Court has decided under the Fourteenth Amendment did the word “sex” appear in the Fourteenth Amendment. It's not like the word “sex” was in there and then all of a sudden it took a powder and left. So I thought that was a really disingenuous way of getting to where the Court wanted to go. But I was not surprised after the oral argument that the Court was going to get to where it got on the bottom line.DL: I'm curious, though, rewinding to Bostock and Zarda, were you surprised by how the Court came out in those cases? Because it was still a deeply conservative Court back then.PK: No, I was not surprised. I was not surprised, both because I thought we had so much the better of the argument and because at the oral argument, it seemed pretty clear that we had at least six justices, and those were the six justices we had at the end of the day. The thing that was interesting to me about Bostock was I thought also that we were likely to win for the following weird legal-realist reason, which is that this was a case that would allow the justices who claimed to be textualists to show that they were principled textualists, by doing something that they might not have voted for if they were in Congress or the like.And also, while the impact was really large in one sense, the impact was not really large in another sense: most American workers are protected by Title VII, but most American employers do not discriminate, and didn't discriminate even before this, on the basis of sexual orientation or on the basis of gender identity. For example, in Zarda's case, the employer denied that they had fired Mr. Zarda because he was gay; they said, “We fired him for other reasons.”Very few employers had a formal policy that said, “We discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.” And although most American workers are protected by Title VII, most American employers are not covered by Title VII—and that's because small employers, employers with fewer than 15 full-time employees, are not covered at all. And religious employers have all sorts of exemptions and the like, so for the people who had the biggest objection to hiring or promoting or retaining gay or transgender employees, this case wasn't going to change what happened to them at all. So the impact was really important for workers, but not deeply intrusive on employers generally. So I thought those two things, taken together, meant that we had a pretty good argument.I actually thought our textual argument was not our best argument, but it was the one that they were most likely to buy. So it was really interesting: we made a bunch of different arguments in the brief, and then as soon as I got up to argue, the first question out of the box was Justice Ginsburg saying, “Well, in 1964, homosexuality was illegal in most of the country—how could this be?” And that's when I realized, “Okay, she's just telling me to talk about the text, don't talk about anything else.”So I just talked about the text the whole time. But as you may remember from the argument, there was this weird moment, which came after I answered her question and one other one, there was this kind of silence from the justices. And I just said, “Well, if you don't have any more questions, I'll reserve the remainder of my time.” And it went well; it went well as an argument.DL: On the flip side, speaking of things that are not going so well, let's turn to current events. Zooming up to a higher level of generality than Skrmetti, you are a leading scholar of constitutional law, so here's the question. I know you've already been interviewed about it by media outlets, but let me ask you again, in light of just the latest, latest, latest news: are we in a constitutional crisis in the United States?PK: I think we're in a period of great constitutional danger. I don't know what a “constitutional crisis” is. Some people think the constitutional crisis is that we have an executive branch that doesn't believe in the Constitution, right? So you have Donald Trump asked, in an interview, “Do you have to comply with the Constitution?” He says, “I don't know.” Or he says, “I have an Article II that gives me the power to do whatever I want”—which is not what Article II says. If you want to be a textualist, it does not say the president can do whatever he wants. So you have an executive branch that really does not have a commitment to the Constitution as it has been understood up until now—that is, limited government, separation of powers, respect for individual rights. With this administration, none of that's there. And I don't know whether Emil Bove did say, “F**k the courts,” or not, but they're certainly acting as if that's their attitude.So yes, in that sense, we're in a period of constitutional danger. And then on top of that, I think we have a Supreme Court that is acting almost as if this is a normal administration with normal stuff, a Court that doesn't seem to recognize what district judges appointed by every president since George H.W. Bush or maybe even Reagan have recognized, which is, “This is not normal.” What the administration is trying to do is not normal, and it has to be stopped. So that worries me, that the Supreme Court is acting as if it needs to keep its powder dry—and for what, I'm not clear.If they think that by giving in and giving in, and prevaricating and putting things off... today, I thought the example of this was in the birthright citizenship/universal injunction case. One of the groups of plaintiffs that's up there is a bunch of states, around 23 states, and the Supreme Court in Justice Barrett's opinion says, “Well, maybe the states have standing, maybe they don't. And maybe if they have standing, you can enjoin this all in those states. We leave this all for remind.”They've sat on this for months. It's ridiculous that the Supreme Court doesn't “man up,” essentially, and decide these things. It really worries me quite a bit that the Supreme Court just seems completely blind to the fact that in 2024, they gave Donald Trump complete criminal immunity from any prosecution, so who's going to hold him accountable? Not criminally accountable, not accountable in damages—and now the Supreme Court seems not particularly interested in holding him accountable either.DL: Let me play devil's advocate. Here's my theory on why the Court does seem to be holding its fire: they're afraid of a worse outcome, which is, essentially, “The emperor has no clothes.”Say they draw this line in the sand for Trump, and then Trump just crosses it. And as we all know from that famous quote from The Federalist Papers, the Court has neither force nor will, but only judgment. That's worse, isn't it? If suddenly it's exposed that the Court doesn't have any army, any way to stop Trump? And then the courts have no power.PK: I actually think it's the opposite, which is, I think if the Court said to Donald Trump, “You must do X,” and then he defies it, you would have people in the streets. You would have real deep resistance—not just the “No Kings,” one-day march, but deep resistance. And there are scholars who've done comparative law who say, “When 3 percent of the people in a country go to the streets, you get real change.” And I think the Supreme Court is mistaking that.I taught a reading group for our first-years here. We have reading groups where you meet four times during the fall for dinner, and you read stuff that makes you think. And my reading group was called “Exit, Voice, and Loyalty,” and it started with the Albert Hirschman book with that title.DL: Great book.PK: It's a great book. And I gave them some excerpt from that, and I gave them an essay by Hannah Arendt called “Personal Responsibility Under Dictatorship,” which she wrote in 1964. And one of the things she says there is she talks about people who stayed in the German regime, on the theory that they would prevent at least worse things from happening. And I'm going to paraphrase slightly, but what she says is, “People who think that what they're doing is getting the lesser evil quickly forget that what they're choosing is evil.” And if the Supreme Court decides, “We're not going to tell Donald Trump ‘no,' because if we tell him no and he goes ahead, we will be exposed,” what they have basically done is said to Donald Trump, “Do whatever you want; we're not going to stop you.” And that will lose the Supreme Court more credibility over time than Donald Trump defying them once and facing some serious backlash for doing it.DL: So let me ask you one final question before we go to my little speed round. That 3 percent statistic is fascinating, by the way, but it resonates for me. My family's originally from the Philippines, and you probably had the 3 percent out there in the streets to oust Marcos in 1986.But let me ask you this. We now live in a nation where Donald Trump won not just the Electoral College, but the popular vote. We do see a lot of ugly things out there, whether in social media or incidents of violence or what have you. You still have enough faith in the American people that if the Supreme Court drew that line, and Donald Trump crossed it, and maybe this happened a couple of times, even—you still have faith that there will be that 3 percent or what have you in the streets?PK: I have hope, which is not quite the same thing as faith, obviously, but I have hope that some Republicans in Congress would grow a spine at that point, and people would say, “This is not right.” Have they always done that? No. We've had bad things happen in the past, and people have not done anything about it. But I think that the alternative of just saying, “Well, since we might not be able to stop him, we shouldn't do anything about it,” while he guts the federal government, sends masked people onto the streets, tries to take the military into domestic law enforcement—I think we have to do something.And this is what's so enraging in some ways: the district court judges in this country are doing their job. They are enjoining stuff. They're not enjoining everything, because not everything can be enjoined, and not everything is illegal; there's a lot of bad stuff Donald Trump is doing that he's totally entitled to do. But the district courts are doing their job, and they're doing their job while people are sending pizza boxes to their houses and sending them threats, and the president is tweeting about them or whatever you call the posts on Truth Social. They're doing their job—and the Supreme Court needs to do its job too. It needs to stand up for district judges. If it's not willing to stand up for the rest of us, you'd think they'd at least stand up for their entire judicial branch.DL: Turning to my speed round, my first question is, what do you like the least about the law? And this can either be the practice of law or law as a more abstract system of ordering human affairs.PK: What I liked least about it was having to deal with opposing counsel in discovery. That drove me to appellate litigation.DL: Exactly—where your request for an extension is almost always agreed to by the other side.PK: Yes, and where the record is the record.DL: Yes, exactly. My second question, is what would you be if you were not a lawyer and/or law professor?PK: Oh, they asked me this question for a thing here at Stanford, and it was like, if I couldn't be a lawyer, I'd... And I just said, “I'd sit in my room and cry.”DL: Okay!PK: I don't know—this is what my talent is!DL: You don't want to write a novel or something?PK: No. What I would really like to do is I would like to bike the Freedom Trail, which is a trail that starts in Montgomery, Alabama, and goes to the Canadian border, following the Underground Railroad. I've always wanted to bike that. But I guess that's not a career. I bike slowly enough that it could be a career, at this point—but earlier on, probably not.DL: My third question is, how much sleep do you get each night?PK: I now get around six hours of sleep each night, but it's complicated by the following, which is when I worked at the Department of Justice the second time, it was during Covid, so I actually worked remotely from California. And what that required me to do was essentially to wake up every morning at 4 a.m., 7 a.m. on the East Coast, so I could have breakfast, read the paper, and be ready to go by 5:30 a.m.I've been unable to get off of that, so I still wake up before dawn every morning. And I spent three months in Florence, and I thought the jet lag would bring me out of this—not in the slightest. Within two weeks, I was waking up at 4:30 a.m. Central European Time. So that's why I get about six hours, because I can't really go to bed before 9 or 10 p.m.DL: Well, I was struck by your being able to do this podcast fairly early West Coast time.PK: Oh no, this is the third thing I've done this morning! I had a 6:30 a.m. conference call.DL: Oh my gosh, wow. It reminds me of that saying about how you get more done in the Army before X hour than other people get done in a day.My last question, is any final words of wisdom, such as career advice or life advice, for my listeners?PK: Yes: do what you love, with people you love doing it with.DL: Well said. I've loved doing this podcast—Professor Karlan, thanks again for joining me.PK: You should start calling me Pam. We've had this same discussion….DL: We're on the air! Okay, well, thanks again, Pam—I'm so grateful to you for joining me.PK: Thanks for having me.DL: Thanks so much to Professor Karlan for joining me. Whether or not you agree with her views, you can't deny that she's both insightful and honest—qualities that have made her a leading legal academic and lawyer, but also a great podcast guest.Thanks to NexFirm for sponsoring the Original Jurisdiction podcast. NexFirm has helped many attorneys to leave Biglaw and launch firms of their own. To explore this opportunity, please contact NexFirm at 212-292-1000 or email careerdevelopment at nexfirm dot com to learn more.Thanks to Tommy Harron, my sound engineer here at Original Jurisdiction, and thanks to you, my listeners and readers. To connect with me, please email me at davidlat at Substack dot com, or find me on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn, at davidlat, and on Instagram and Threads at davidbenjaminlat.If you enjoyed today's episode, please rate, review, and subscribe. Please subscribe to the Original Jurisdiction newsletter if you don't already, over at davidlat dot substack dot com. This podcast is free, but it's made possible by paid subscriptions to the newsletter.The next episode should appear on or about Wednesday, July 23. Until then, may your thinking be original and your jurisdiction free of defects. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit davidlat.substack.com/subscribe

How has the media distorted Israel's response to the October 7 Hamas attacks? In this powerful conversation from AJC Global Forum 2025, award-winning journalist and former AP correspondent Matti Friedman breaks down the media bias, misinformation, and double standards shaping global coverage of Israel. Moderated by AJC Chief Communications and Strategy Officer Belle Etra Yoeli, this episode explores how skewed narratives have taken hold in the media, in a climate of activist journalism. A must-listen for anyone concerned with truth in journalism, Israel advocacy, and combating disinformation in today's media landscape. Take Action: Take 15 seconds and urge your elected leaders to send a clear, united message: We stand with Israel. Take action now. Resources: Global Forum 2025 session with Matti Friedman:: Watch the full video. Listen – AJC Podcasts: The Forgotten Exodus: Untold stories of Jews who left or were driven from Arab nations and Iran People of the Pod:  Latest Episodes:  John Spencer's Key Takeaways After the 12-Day War: Air Supremacy, Intelligence, and Deterrence Iran's Secret Nuclear Program and What Comes Next in the Iranian Regime vs. Israel War Why Israel Had No Choice: Inside the Defensive Strike That Shook Iran's Nuclear Program Follow People of the Pod on your favorite podcast app, and learn more at AJC.org/PeopleofthePod You can reach us at: peopleofthepod@ajc.org If you've appreciated this episode, please be sure to tell your friends, and rate and review us on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Transcript of the Interview: Manya Brachear Pashman: I've had the privilege of interviewing journalism colleague Matti Friedman: twice on this podcast. In 2022, Matti took listeners behind the scenes of Jerusalem's AP bureau where he had worked between 2006 and 2011 and shared some insight on what happens when news outlets try to oversimplify the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Then in 2023, I got to sit down with Matti in Jerusalem to talk about his latest book on Leonard Cohen and how the 1973 Yom Kippur War was a turning point both for the singer and for Israel.  Earlier this year, Matti came to New York for AJC Global Forum 2025, and sat down with Belle Yoeli, AJC Chief Strategy and Communications Officer. They rehashed some of what we discussed before, but against an entirely different backdrop: post-October 7. For this week's episode, we bring you a portion of that conversation.  Belle Yoeli:   Hi, everyone. Great to see all of you. Thank you so much for being here. Matti, thank you for being here.  Matti Friedman:   Thanks for having me.  Belle Yoeli:   As you can tell by zero empty seats in this room, you have a lot of fans, and unless you want to open with anything, I'm going to jump right in. Okay, great.  So for those of you who don't know, in September 2024 Matti wrote a piece in The Free Press that is a really great foundation for today's discussion. In When We Started to Lie, Matti, you reflect on two pieces that you had written in 2015 about issues of media coverage of Israel during Operation Protective Edge in 2014. And this piece basically talked about the conclusions you drew and how they've evolved since October 7. We're gonna get to those conclusions, but first, I'm hoping you can describe for everyone what were the issues of media coverage of Israel that you first identified based on the experience in 2014? Matti Friedman:   First of all, thanks so much for having me here, and thanks for all of the amazing work that you guys are doing. So it's a real honor for me. I was a reporter for the AP, between 2006 and the very end of 2011, in Jerusalem. I was a reporter and editor. The AP, of course, as you know, is the American news agency. It's the world's largest news organization, according to the AP, according to Reuters, it's Reuters. One of them is probably right, but it's a big deal in the news world.  And I had an inside view inside one of the biggest AP bureaus. In fact, the AP's biggest International Bureau, which was in Jerusalem. So I can try to sketch the problems that I saw as a reporter there. It would take me seven or eight hours, and apparently we only have four or five hours for this lunch, so I have to keep it short. But I would say there are two main problems. We often get very involved. When we talk about problems with coverage of Israel. We get involved with very micro issues like, you call it a settlement. I call it a neighborhood. Rockets, you know, the Nakba, issues of terminology. But in fact, there are two major problems that are much bigger, and because they're bigger, they're often harder to see. One of the things that I noticed at the Bureau was the scale of coverage of Israel. So at the time that I was at the AP, again, between 2006 and the very end of 2011 we had about 40 full time staffers covering Israel. That's print reporters like me, stills photographers, TV crews. Israel, as most of you probably know, is a very small country. As a percentage of the world's surface, Israel is 1/100 of 1% of the surface of the world, and as a percentage of the land mass of the Arab world, Israel is 1/5 of 1%. 0.2%.  And we had 40 people covering it.  And just as a point of comparison, that was dramatically more people than we had at the time covering China. There are about 10 million people today in Israel proper, in China, there are 1.3 billion. We had more people in Israel than we had in China. We had more people in Israel than we had in India, which is another country of about 1.3 billion people. We had more people in Israel than we had in all of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa. That's 50 something countries. So we had more people in Israel than we had in all of those countries combined. And sometimes I say that to Jews, I say we covered Israel more than we covered China, and people just stare at me blankly, because it's Israel. So of course, that makes perfect sense.  I happen to think Israel is the most important country in the world because I live there. But if the news is meant to be a rational analysis of events on planet Earth, you cannot cover Israel more than you cover the continent of Africa. It just doesn't make any sense. So one of the things that first jumped out at me– actually, that's making me sound smarter than I am. It didn't jump out at me at first. It took a couple of years. And I just started realizing that it was very strange that the world's largest organization had its largest international bureau in the State of Israel, which is a very small country, very small conflict in numeric terms. And yet there was this intense global focus on it that made people think that it was the most important story in the world. And it definitely occupies a place in the American political imagination that is not comparable to any other international conflict.  So that's one part of the problem. That was the scope, the other part was the context. And it took me a while to figure this out, but the coverage of Israel is framed as an Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The conflict is defined in those terms, the Israeli Palestinian conflict, and everyone in this room has heard it discussed in those terms. Sometimes we discuss it in those terms, and that is because the news folks have framed the conflict in those terms. So at the AP bureau in Jerusalem, every single day, we had to write a story that was called, in the jargon of the Bureau, Is-Pals, Israelis, Palestinians. And it was the daily wrap of the Israeli Palestinian conflict. So what Netanyahu said, what Abbas said, rockets, settlers, Hamas, you know, whatever, the problem is that there isn't an Israeli=Palestinian conflict. And I know that sounds crazy, because everyone thinks there is.  And of course, we're seeing conflicts play out in the most tragic way right now in Gaza. But most of Israel's wars have not been fought against Palestinians. Israel has unfortunately fought wars against Egyptians and Jordanians and Lebanese and Iraqis. And Israel's most important enemy at the moment, is Iran, right? The Iranians are not Palestinian. The Iranians are not Arab. They're Muslim, but they're not Arab. So clearly, there is a broader regional conflict that's going on that is not an Israeli Palestinian conflict, and we've seen it in the past year. If we had a satellite in space looking down and just following the paths of ballistic missiles and rockets fired at Israel. Like a photograph of these red trails of rockets fired at Israel. You'd see rockets being fired from Iraq and from Yemen and from Lebanon and from Gaza and from Iran. You'd see the contours of a regional conflict.  And if you understand it's a regional conflict, then you understand the way Israelis see it. There are in the Arab world, 300 million people, almost all of them Muslim. And in one corner of that world, there are 7 million Jews, who are Israelis. And if we zoom out even farther to the level of the Islamic world, we'll see that there are 2 billion people in the Islamic world. There's some argument about the numbers, but it's roughly a quarter of the world's population. And in one corner of that world there, there are 7 million Israeli Jews. The entire Jewish population on planet Earth is a lot smaller than the population of Cairo.  So the idea that this is an Israeli-Palestinian conflict, where Israelis are the stronger side, where Israelis are the dominant actor, and where Israelis are, let's face it, the bad guy in the story, that's a fictional presentation of a story that actually works in a completely different way. So if you take a small story and make it seem big. If you take a complicated regional story and you make it seem like a very small local story involving only Israelis and Palestinians, then you get the highly simplified but very emotive narrative that everyone is being subjected to now. And you get this portrayal of a villainous country called Israel that really looms in the liberal imagination of the West as an embodiment of the worst possible qualities of the age. Belle Yoeli:   Wow. So already you were seeing these issues when you were reporter, earlier on. But like this, some of this was before and since, since productive edge. This is over 10 years ago, and here we are. So October 7 happens. You already know these issues exist. You've identified them. How would you describe because obviously we have a lot of feelings about this, but like, strictly as a journalist, how would you describe the coverage that you've seen since during October 7, in its aftermath? Is it just these issues? Have they? Have they expanded? Are there new issues in play? What's your analysis? Matti Friedman:   The coverage has been great. I really have very I have no criticism of it. I think it's very accurate. I think that I, in a way, I was lucky to have been through what I went through 10 or 15 years ago, and I wasn't blindsided on October 7, as many people were, many people, quite naturally, don't pay close attention to this. And even people who are sympathetic to Israel, I think, were not necessarily convinced that my argument about the press was right. And I think many people thought it was overstated.  And you can read those articles from 2014 one was in tablet and one was in the Atlantic, but it's basically the two chapters of the same argument. And unfortunately, I think that those the essays, they stand up. In fact, if you don't really look at the date of the essays, they kind of seem that they could have been written in the past year and a half. And I'm not happy about that. I think that's and I certainly wrote them in hopes that they would somehow make things better. But the issues that I saw in the press 15 years ago have only been exacerbated since then. And October seven didn't invent the wheel. The issues were pre existing, but it took everything that I saw and kind of supercharged it.  So if I talked about ideological conformity in the bureaus that has been that has become much more extreme. A guy like me, I was hired in 2006 at the AP. I'm an Israeli of center left political leanings. Hiring me was not a problem in 22,006 by the time I left the AP, at the end of 2011 I'm pretty sure someone like me would not have been hired because my views, which are again, very centrist Israeli views, were really beyond the pale by the time that I left the AP, and certainly, and certainly today, the thing has really moved what I saw happening at the AP. And I hate picking on the AP because they were just unfortunate enough to hire me. That was their only error, but what I'm saying about them is true of a whole new. Was heard. It's true of the Times and CNN and the BBC, the news industry really works kind of as a it has a herd mentality. What happened was that news decisions were increasingly being made by people who are not interested in explanatory journalism. They were activists. Activists had moved into the key positions in the Bureau, and they had a very different idea of what press coverage was supposed to do. I would say, and I tried to explain it in that article for the free press, when I approach a news story, when I approach the profession of journalism, the question that I'm asking is, what's going on? That's the question I think you're supposed to ask, what's going on? How can I explain it in a way that's as accurate as as possible? The question that was increasingly being asked was not what's going on. The question was, who does this serve? That's an activist question. So when you look at a story, you don't ask, is it true, or is it not true? You ask, who's it going to help? Is it going to help the good guys, or is it going to help the bad guys?  So if Israel in the story is the villain, then a story that makes Israel seem reasonable, reasonable or rational or sympathetic needs to be played down to the extent possible or made to disappear. And I can give you an example from my own experience.  At the very end of 2008 two reporters in my bureau, people who I know, learned of a very dramatic peace offer that Prime Minister Ehud Olmert had made to the Palestinians. So Olmert, who was the prime minister at the time, had made a very far reaching offer that was supposed to see a Palestinian state in all of Gaza, most of the West Bank, with land swaps for territory that Israel was going to retain, and a very far reaching international consortium agreement to run the Old City of Jerusalem. Was a very dramatic. It was so far reaching, I think that Israelis probably wouldn't have supported it. But it was offered to the Palestinian side, and the Palestinians rejected it as insufficient. And two of our reporters knew about this, and they'd seen a map of the offer. And this was obviously a pretty big story for a bureau that had as the thrust of its coverage the peace process.  The two reporters who had the story were ordered to drop it, they were not allowed to cover the story. And there were different explanations. And they didn't, by the way, AP did not publish the story at the time, even though we were the first to have it. Eventually, it kind of came out and in other ways, through other news organizations. But we knew at first. Why were we not allowed to cover it? Because it would have made the Israelis who we were trying to villainize and demonize, it would have made Israel seem like it was trying to solve the conflict on kind of reasonable lines, which, of course, was true at that time. So that story would have upended the thrust of our news coverage. So it had to be made to go away, even though it was true, it would have helped the wrong people. And that question of who does this serve has destroyed, I want to say all, but much, of what used to be mainstream news coverage, and it's not just where Israel is concerned.  You can look at a story like the mental health of President Biden, right. Something's going on with Biden at the end of his term. It's a huge global news story, and the press, by and large, won't touch it, because why? I mean, it's true, right? We're all seeing that it's true, but why can't you touch it? Because it would help the wrong people. It would help the Republicans who in the press are the people who you are not supposed to help.  The origins of COVID, right? We heard one story about that. The true story seems to be a different story. And there are many other examples of stories that are reported because they help the right people, or not reported because they would help the wrong people. And I saw this thinking really come into action in Israel 10 or 15 years ago, and unfortunately, it's really spread to include the whole mainstream press scene and really kill it.  I mean, essentially, anyone interested in trying to get a solid sense of what's going on, we have very few options. There's not a lot, there's not a lot out there. So that's the broader conclusion that I drew from what I thought at the time was just a very small malfunction involving Israel coverage. But Israel coverage ends up being a symptom of something much bigger, as Jews often are the symptom of something much bigger that's going on.  So my problems in the AP bureau 15 years ago were really a kind of maybe a canary in the coal mine, or a whiff of something much bigger that we were all going to see happen, which is the transformation of the important liberal institutions of the west into kind of activist arms of a very radical ideology that has as its goal the transformation of the west into something else. And that's true of the press, and it's true of NGO world, places like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which were one thing 30 years ago and are something very different today. And it's also true of big parts of the academy. It's true of places like Columbia and places like Harvard, they still have the logo, they still have the name, but they serve a different purpose, and I just happen to be on the ground floor of it as a reporter. Belle Yoeli:   So obviously, this concept of who does this serve, and this activist journalism is deeply concerning, and you actually mentioned a couple other areas, academia, obviously we're in that a lot right now in terms of what's going on campus. So I guess a couple of questions on that. First of all, think about this very practically, tachlis, in the day to day.  I'm a journalist, and I go to write about what's happening in Gaza. What would you say is, if you had to throw out a percentage, are all of them aware of this activist journalist tendency? Or you think it's like, like intentional for many of them, or it's sort of they've been educated that way, and it's their worldview in such a way that they don't even know that they're not reporting the news in a very biased way. Does that make sense? Matti Friedman:   Totally. I think that many people in the journalism world today view their job as not as explaining a complicated situation, but as swaying people toward the correct political conclusion. Journalism is power, and the power has to be wielded in support of justice. Now, justice is very slippery, and, you know, choosing who's in the right is very, very slippery, and that's how journalism gets into a lot of trouble. Instead of just trying to explain what's going on and then leave, you're supposed to leave the politics and the activism to other people. Politics and activism are very important.  But unless everyone can agree on what is going on, it's impossible to choose the kind of act, the kind of activism that would be useful. So when the journalists become activists, then no one can understand what's what's going on, because the story itself is fake, and there are many, many examples of it. But you know, returning to what you asked about, about October 7, and reporting post October 7, you can really see it happen. The massacres of October 7 were very problematic for the ideological strain that now controls a lot of the press, because it's counterintuitive. You're not supposed to sympathize with Israelis.  And yet, there were a few weeks after October 7 when they were forced to because the nature of the atrocities were so heinous that they could not be ignored. So you had the press covering what happened on October 7, but you could feel it. As someone who knows that scene, you could feel there was a lot of discomfort. There was a lot of discomfort. It wasn't their comfort zone, and you knew that within a few weeks, maybe a month, it was gonna snap back at the first opportunity.  When did it snap back? In the story of the Al Ahli hospital strike. If you remember that a few weeks in, there's a massive global story that Israel has rocketed Hospital in Gaza and killed about 500 people and and then you can see the kind of the comfort the comfort zone return, because the story that the press is primed to cover is a story about villainous Israelis victimizing innocent Palestinians, and now, now we're back. Okay. Now Israel's rocketing hospital. The problem was that it hadn't happened, and it was that a lot of stories don't happen, and they're allowed to stand.  But this story was so far from the truth that even the people involved couldn't make it work, and it had to be retracted, but it was basically too late. And then as soon as the Israeli ground offensive got into swing in Gaza, then the story really becomes the same old story, which is a story of Israel victimizing Palestinians for no reason. And you'll never see Hamas militants in uniform in Gaza. You just see dead civilians, and you'll see the aftermath of a rocket strike when the, you know, when an Israeli F16 takes out the launcher, but you will never see the strike. Which is the way it's worked in Gaza since the very end of 2008 which is when the first really bad round of violence in Gaza happens, which is when I'm at the AP.  As far as I know, I was the first staffer to erase information from the story, because we were threatened by Hamas, which happened at the very end of 2008. We had a great reporter in Gaza, a Palestinian who had always been really an excellent reporter. We had a detail in a story. The detail was a crucial one. It was that Hamas fighters were dressed as civilians and were being counted as civilians in the death toll, an important thing to know, that went out in an AP story. The reporter called me a few hours later. It was clear that someone had spoken to him, and he told me, I was on the desk in Jerusalem, so I was kind of writing the story from the main bureau in Jerusalem. And he said, Matti, you have to take that detail out of the story. And it was clear that someone had threatened him. I took the detail out of the story. I suggested to our editors that we note in an Editor's Note that we were now complying with Hamas censorship. I was overruled, and from that point in time, the AP, like all of its sister organizations, collaborates with Hamas censorship in Gaza.  What does that mean? You'll see a lot of dead civilians, and you won't see dead militants. You won't have a clear idea of what the Hamas military strategy is. And this is the kicker, the center of the coverage will be a number, a casualty number, that is provided to the press by something called the Gaza health ministry, which is Hamas. And we've been doing that since 2008, and it's a way of basically settling the story before you get into any other information. Because when you put, you know, when you say 50 Palestinians were killed, and one Israeli on a given day, it doesn't matter what else you say. The numbers kind of tell their own story, and it's a way of settling the story with something that sounds like a concrete statistic. And the statistic is being, you know, given to us by one of the combatant sides. But because the reporters sympathize with that side, they're happy to play along. So since 2008, certainly since 2014 when we had another serious war in Gaza, the press has not been covering Gaza, the press has been essentially an amplifier for one of the most poisonous ideologies on Earth. Hamas has figured out how to make the press amplify its messaging rather than covering Hamas. There are no Western reporters in Gaza. All of the reporters in Gaza are Palestinians, and those people fall into three categories. Some of them identify with Hamas. Some of them are intimidated by Hamas and won't cross Hamas, which makes a lot of sense. I wouldn't want to cross Hamas either. So either. And the third category is people who actually belong to Hamas. That's where the information from Gaza is coming from. And if you're credulous, then of course, you're going to get a story that makes Israel look pretty bad. Belle Yoeli:   So this is very depressing. That's okay. It's very helpful, very depressing. But on that note, I would ask you so whether, because you spoke about this problem in terms, of, of course, the coverage of Israel, but that it's it's also more widespread you talk, you spoke about President Biden in your article, you name other examples of how this sort of activist journalism is affecting everything we read. So what should everyone in this room be reading, truly, from your opinion. This is Matti's opinion. But if you want to you want to get information from our news and not activist journalism, obviously The Free Press, perhaps. But are there other sites or outlets that you think are getting this more down the line, or at least better than some, some better than others?  Matti Friedman:   No, it's just The Free Press. No. I mean, it's a question that I also wrestle with. I haven't given up on everyone, and even in publications that have, I think, largely lost the plot, you'll still find good stuff on occasion. So I try to keep my eye on certain reporters whose name I know. I often ask not just on Israel, but on anything, does this reporter speak the language of the country that they're covering? You'd be shocked at how rare that is for Americans. A lot of the people covering Ukraine have no idea what language they speak in Ukraine, and just as someone who covers Israel, I'm aware of the low level of knowledge that many of the Western reporters have. You'll find really good stuff still in the Atlantic. The Atlantic has managed, against steep odds, to maintain its equilibrium amid all this. The New Yorker, unfortunately, less so, but you'll still see, on occasion, things that are good. And there are certain reporters who are, you know, you can trust. Isabel Kirchner, who writes for The New York Times, is an old colleague of mine from the Jerusalem report. She's excellent, and they're just people who are doing their job. But by and large, you have to be very, very suspicious of absolutely everything that you read and see. And I'm not saying that as someone who I'm not happy to say that, and I certainly don't identify with, you know, the term fake news, as it has been pushed by President Trump.  I think that fake news is, you know, for those guys, is an attempt to avoid scrutiny. They're trying to, you know, neuter the watchdog so that they can get away with whatever they want. I don't think that crowd is interested in good press coverage. Unfortunately, the term fake news sticks because it's true. That's why it has worked. And the press, instead of helping people navigate the blizzard of disinformation that we're all in, they've joined it. People who are confused about what's going on, should be able to open up the New York Times or go to the AP and figure out what's going on, but because, and I saw it happen, instead of covering the circus, the reporters became dancing bears in the circus. So no one can make heads or tails of anything. So we need to be very careful.  Most headlines that are out there are out there to generate outrage, because that's the most predictable generator of clicks, which is the, we're in a click economy. So I actually think that the less time you spend following headlines and daily news, the better off you'll be. Because you can follow the daily news for a year, and by the end of the year, you'll just be deranged. You'll just be crazy and very angry.  If you take that time and use it to read books about, you know, bitten by people who are knowledgeable, or read longer form essays that are, you know, that are obviously less likely to be very simplistic, although not, you know, it's not completely impossible that they will be. I think that's time, that's time better spent. Unfortunately, much of the industry is kind of gone. And we're in an interesting kind of interim moment where it's clear that the old news industry is basically dead and that something new has to happen. And those new things are happening. I mean, The Free Press is part of a new thing that's happening. It's not big enough to really move the needle in a dramatic way yet, but it might be, and I think we all have to hope that new institutions emerge to fill the vacuum.  The old institutions, and I say this with sorrow, and I think that this also might be true of a lot of the academic institutions. They can't be saved. They can't be saved. So if people think that writing an editor, a letter to the editor of the New York Times is going to help. It's not going to help. Sometimes people say, Why don't we just get the top people in the news industry and bring them to Israel and show them the truth? Doesn't help. It's not about knowing or not knowing. They define the profession differently.  So it's not about a lack of information. The institutions have changed, and it's kind of irrevocable at this point, and we need new institutions, and one of them is The Free Press, and it's a great model of what to do when faced with fading institutions. By the way, the greatest model of all time in that regard is Zionism. That's what Zionism is. There's a guy in Vienna in 1890 something, and his moment is incredibly contemporary. There's an amazing biography of Herzl called Herzl by Amos Elon. It's an amazing book. If you haven't read it, you should read it, because his moment in cosmopolitan Vienna sounds exactly like now. It's shockingly current. He's in this friendly city. He's a reporter for the New York Times, basically of the Austro Hungarian empire, and he's assimilated, and he's got a Christmas tree in his house, and his son isn't circumcised, and he thinks everything is basically great. And then the light changes.  He notices that something has changed in Vienna, and the discourse about Jews changes, and like in a Hollywood movie, the light changes. And he doesn't try to he doesn't start a campaign against antisemitism. He doesn't get on social media and kind of rail against unfair coverage. He sits down in a hotel room in Paris and he writes this pamphlet called the Jewish state, and I literally flew from that state yesterday. So there's a Zionist model where you look at a failing world and you think about radical solutions that involve creation. And I think we're there. And I think Herzl's model is a good one at a dark time you need real creativity. Belle Yoeli:   Thank God you found the inspiration there, because I was really, I was really starting to worry. No, in all seriousness, Matti, the saying that these institutions can't be saved. I mean the consequences of this, not just for us as pro-Israel, pro-Jewish advocates, but for our country, for the world, the countries that we come from are tremendous.  And the way we've been dealing with this issue and thinking about how, how can you change hearts and minds of individuals about Israel, about the Jewish people, if everything that they're reading is so damaging and most of what they're reading is so damaging and basically saying there's very little that we can do about that. So I am going to push you to dream big with us. We're an advocacy organization. AJC is an advocacy organization. So if you had unlimited resources, right, if you really wanted to make change in this area, to me, it sounds like you're saying we basically need 15 Free Presses or the new institutions to really take on this way. What would you do? What would you do to try to make it so that news media were more like the old days? Matti Friedman:   Anyone who wants unlimited resources should not go into journalism. I have found that my resources remain limited. I'll give you an answer that is probably not what you're expecting or not what you want here. I think that the fight can't be won. I think that antisemitism can't be defeated. And I think that resources that are poured into it are resources wasted. And of course, I think that people need legal protection, and they need, you know, lawyers who can protect people from discrimination and from defamation. That's very important. But I know that when people are presented with a problem like antisemitism, which is so disturbing and it's really rocking the world of everyone in this room, and certainly, you know, children and grandchildren, you have a problem and you want to address it, right? You have a really bad rash on your arm. You want the rash to go away, and you're willing to do almost anything to make it go away. This has always been with us. It's always been with us.  And you know, we recently celebrated the Seder, and we read in the Seder, in the Haggadah, l'chol dor vador, omdim aleinu l'chaloteinu. Which is, in every generation, they come at us to destroy us. And it's an incredibly depressing worldview. Okay, it's not the way I wanted to see the world when I grew up in Toronto in the 1990s. But in our tradition, we have this idea that this is always gonna be around. And the question is, what do you do? Do you let other people define you? Do you make your identity the fight against the people who hate you? And I think that's a dead end.  This crisis is hitting the Jewish people at a moment when many of us don't know who we are, and I think that's why it's hitting so hard. For my grandfather, who was a standard New York Jew, garment industry, Lower East Side, poor union guy. This would not have shaken him, because he just assumed that this was the world like this. The term Jewish identity was not one he ever heard, because it wasn't an issue or something that had to be taught. So if I had unlimited resources, what I would do is I would make sure that young Jewish people have access to the riches of Jewish civilization, I would, you know, institute a program that would allow any young Jewish person to be fluent in Hebrew by the time they finish college. Why is that so important? Why is that such an amazing key?  Because if you're fluent in Hebrew, you can open a Tanakh, or you can open a prayer book if you want. Or you can watch Fauda or you can get on a plane to Israel and hit on Israeli guys. Hebrew is the key to Jewish life, and if you have it, a whole world will open up. And it's not one that antisemites can interfere with. It does not depend on the goodwill of our neighbors. It's all about us and what we're doing with ourselves. And I think that if you're rooted in Jewish tradition, and I'm not saying becoming religious, I'm just saying, diving into the riches of Jewish tradition, whether it's history or gemara or Israel, or whatever, if you're if you're deep in there enough, then the other stuff doesn't go away, but it becomes less important.  It won't be solved because it can't be solved, but it will fade into the background. And if we make the center of identity the fight against antisemitism, they've won. Why should they be the center of our identity? For a young person who's looking for some way of living or some deep kind of guide to life, the fight against antisemitism is not going to do it, and philanthropy is not going to do it. We come from the wisest and one of the oldest civilizations in the world, and many of us don't know how to open the door to that civilization, and that's in our hands. And if we're not doing it, it's not the fault of the antisemites. It's our own fault. So if I had unlimited resources, which, again, it's not, it's not going to happen unless I make a career change, that's where I would be putting my effort. Internally and not externally.  Belle Yoeli:   You did find the inspiration, though, again, by pushing Jewish identity, and we appreciate that. It's come up a lot in this conversation, this question about how we fight antisemitism, investing in Jewish identity and who we are, and at the same time, what do we do about it? And I think all of you heard Ted in a different context last night, say, we can hold two things, two thoughts at the same time, right? Two things can be true at the same time. And I think for me, what I took out of this, in addition to your excellent insights, is that that's exactly what we have to be doing.  At AJC, we have to be engaging in this advocacy to stand up for the Jewish people and the State of Israel. But that's not the only piece of the puzzle. Of course, we have to be investing in Jewish identity. That's why we bring so many young people to this conference. Of course, we need to be investing in Jewish education. That's not necessarily what AJC is doing, the bulk of our work, but it's a lot of what the Jewish community is doing, and these pieces have to go together. And I want to thank you for raising that up for us, and again, for everything that you said. Thank you all so much for being here. Thank you. Manya Brachear Pashman: If you missed last week's episode, be sure to tune in as John Spencer, Chair of Urban Warfare Studies at West Point, breaks down Israel's high-stakes strike on Iran's nuclear infrastructure and the U.S. decision to enter the fight. 

This episode is sponsored by: My Financial CoachYou trained to save lives—who's helping you save your financial future? My Financial Coach connects physicians with CFP® Professionals who specialize in your complex needs. Whether it's crushing student loans, optimizing investments, or planning for retirement, you'll get a personalized strategy built around your goals. Save for a vacation home, fund your child's education, or prepare for life's surprises—with unbiased, advice-only planning through a flat monthly fee. No commissions. No conflicts. Just clarity.Visit myfinancialcoach.com/physiciansguidetodoctoring to meet your financial coach and find out if concierge planning is right for you.———————Can faith enhance medical practice and renew purpose? Host Dr. Bradley Block welcomes Dr. Jonathan Weinkle, for an in-depth discussion centered around his insightful book, ‘Illness to Exodus'. Drawing inspiration from the rich traditions of the Passover Seder, Dr. Weinkle has developed an innovative Healing Seder, a ritual designed to cultivate compassion and infuse a renewed sense of purpose into the daily lives of healthcare providers. Leveraging his deep Jewish heritage and his extensive experience teaching courses such as Death and the Healthcare Professions, he delves into the transformative potential of simple rituals, such as performing a morning Kiddush over a cup of coffee, which can elevate routine tasks into profoundly meaningful acts. This episode masterfully weaves together themes of faith, compelling storytelling, and actionable advice, providing physicians with valuable tools to rediscover their calling and maintain a purposeful approach to their practice, even amidst the monotony of repetitive patient care.Three Actionable Takeaways:Adopt a Daily Ritual – Use a morning Kiddush or similar practice (e.g., over coffee) to start your day with purpose and resilience.Embrace Patient Narratives – Listen to patients' unique stories, like a Seder tale, to reignite curiosity and care in repetitive care settings.Navigate Faith Conflicts with Empathy – Engage with patients' religious views openly to find common ground and tailor effective care plans.About the Show:PGD Physician's Guide to Doctoring covers patient interactions, burnout, career growth, personal finance, and more. If you're tired of dull medical lectures, tune in for real-world lessons we should have learned in med school!About the Guest:Dr. Jonathan Weinkle is an internist and pediatrician who practices primary care and serves as Chief Medical Officer at Squirrel Hill Health Center in Pittsburgh. A University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine graduate with a Med-Peds residency, he is a clinical assistant professor in Family Medicine and part-time instructor in Religious Studies and Conceptual Foundations of Medicine at Pitt. He teaches Death and the Healthcare Professions and Healing and Humanity, authored Healing People, Not Patients and Illness to Exodus, and runs ‘Healers Who Listen', where he blogs on healing and Jewish tradition. Once considering a rabbinical path, he now integrates faith and medicine to support physicians and patients.LinkedIn: http://linkedin.com/in/jonathan-weinkle-3440032awebsite: https://healerswholisten.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/healerswholisten?igsh=eXQ3a2QxMXZncTluAbout the host:Dr. Bradley Block – Dr. Bradley Block is a board-certified otolaryngologist at ENT and Allergy Associates in Garden City, NY. He specializes in adult and pediatric ENT, with interests in sinusitis and obstructive sleep apnea. Dr. Block also hosts The Physician's Guide to Doctoring podcast, focusing on personal and professional development for physiciansWant to be a guest? Email Brad at brad@physiciansguidetodoctoring.com  or visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to learn more!Socials:@physiciansguidetodoctoring on Facebook@physicianguidetodoctoring on YouTube@physiciansguide on Instagram and Twitter Visit www.physiciansguidetodoctoring.com to connect, dive deeper, and keep the conversation going. Let's grow! Disclaimer:This podcast is for informational purposes only and is not a substitute for professional medical, financial, or legal advice. Always consult a qualified professional for personalized guidance.

Join us in Jerusalem for Ohr Samayach's Inaugural Yarchei Kallah event from July 7th to 9th, 2025! Featuring HaRav Yitzchak Breitowitz shlit"a & HaRav Asher Weiss shlit"a and more Click here for more information.   Dont miss this one of a kind experience! ---------------------------------------------------- Dedication opportunities are available for episodes and series at  https://ohr.edu/donate/qa   Questions? Comments? podcasts@ohr.edu   0:00 thoughts on Shavuot 1:25 how different should shana rishona be to other years of marriage 6:30 why does the Torah want Shmita to cancel loans 16:10 how should we navigate our divine purpose today without any Neviim 27:50 is birth control evil, do some poskim permit it? 36:00 why dont we see women taking on the option of making a zimmun together 43:25 under what circumstances can Chazal make multiple drashot from one pasuk 47:15 to what extent should secular education be allowed 57:35 what was the curriculum of Shem's yeshiva 1:00:00 why did there need to be different shvatim and what will their role be in the future 1:07:05 did people in chutzla aretz have to keep 2 days of Yom Kippur for not knowing when Rosh Hodesh Tishrei was declared 1:11:05 why did the rishonim write so much on Seder nazikim 1:19:25 origin of dikduk in lashon hakodesh 1:28:00 do any of the agricultural laws of Eretz Yisrael apply to produce in Chutzla Aretz 1:30:10 is the shmoneh esrei bracha taken from parashat kodshim 1:31:35 is tanning a problem of beged isha 1:32:50 are there problems with haskamas given to sefarim   Yeshivat Ohr Somayach located in the heart of Jerusalem, is an educational institution for young Jewish English-speaking men. We have a range of classes and programs designed for the intellectually curious and academically inclined - for those with no background in Jewish learning to those who are proficient in Gemara and other original source material. To find the perfect program for you, please visit our website https://ohr.edu/study_in_israel​whatsapp us at https://bit.ly/OSREGISTER or call our placement specialist at 1-254-981-0133 today! Subscribe to the Rabbi Breitowitz Q&A Podcast at https://plnk.to/rbq&a   Submit questions for the Q&A with Rabbi Breitowitz https://forms.gle/VCZSK3wQJJ4fSd3Q7   Subscribe to our YouTube Channel at https://www.youtube.com/c/OhrSomayach/videos     You can listen to this and many other Ohr Somayach programs by downloading our app, on Apple and Google Play, ohr.edu and all major podcast platforms. Visit us @ https://ohr.edu  PRODUCED BY: CEDAR MEDIA STUDIOS  

What happens when the dream job just doesn't feel like your dream?In this episode, we sit down with Yaakov (Bryant) Oberg, who left a successful banking career in LA in search of something deeper. What started as spiritual curiosity led to yeshiva in Yerushalayim, and later to a new challenge—integrating Torah learning into the reality of full-time work.He started out by learning a full morning seder followed by working in the afternoon and evening. But then he burnt out.This lead him to help launch: Kollel Gedulei Tzion, a kollel built around a bold idea—a half seder of high-quality learning for Bnei Torah in the workforce.This episode explores:The decision to walk away from a high paying job in pursuit of meaningWhat it looks like to live an integrated Torah–work lifestyleWhy sometimes less learning can lead to more growthIt's a powerful reminder that success isn't about how many hours you log—it's about where your heart is.For more information on Kollel Gedulei Tzion, led by Rabbi Zev Horowitz, go to https://www.geduleitzion.org/Chapters00:00 Introduction and Background06:12 Leaving Corporate Life for Yeshiva18:13 Establishing a New Learning Framework33:43 Reflecting on Work, Passion and SpiritualitySubscribe to our newsletter at ⁠⁠shtarktank.org⁠⁠ for more from working Bnei Torah around the world.Join our ⁠⁠quiet whatsapp group ⁠⁠for episode updates, event invites and exclusive bonus content.Thank you for listening.If this episode moved you, please take a moment to rate and review — it helps us bring more meaningful conversations to more people.Subscribe to Shtark Tank for thoughtful interviews, honest reflections, and real conversations for Bnei Torah navigating the modern world.

Are generational strongholds keeping you stuck?In this episode of the Curt Landry Podcast, Rabbi Curt and Darrell Puckett talk about bloodline curses, generational strongholds, and how to break free by the blood of Jesus. Iniquitous structures speak sickness, disease, and death over our families, but the blood of Jesus speaks life, healing, and blessing. We must come out of agreement with generational sin patterns, confess, repent, and plead the blood-covering that we may set a new legacy for generations to come. Join Rabbi as he shares the power of Passover to unlock deliverance, why it's vital to be spiritually equipped, and how to operate in Kingdom authority on behalf of yourself, your family, and community.Resource Mentioned–Watch Passover 2025 Seder: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tb083DJ6Qgs&t=5431s

1375 He's an Ivy League investor who turned the racetrack into Wall Street. With a background in law, finance, and neuroscience, he's using high-tech tools to pick winning horses like stocks—and he's got the stats to back it up. Please welcome... Jeffrey Seder! Website: https://www.eqb.fyi/Social Media: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jseder/________ Go to www.BusinessBros.biz to be a guest on the show or to find out more on how we can help you get more customers! #Businesspodcasts #smallbusinesspodcast #businessmarketingtips #businessgrowthtips #strategicthinking #businessmastery #successinbusiness #businesshacks #marketingstrategist #wealthcreators #businessstrategies #businesseducation #businesstools #businesspodcast #businessmodel #growthmarketing #businesshelp #businesssupport #salesfunnel #buildyourbusiness #podcastinglife #successgoals #wealthcreation #marketingcoach #smallbusinesstips #businessmarketing #marketingconsultant #entrepreneurtips #businessstrategy #growyourbusinessWant to create live streams like this? Check out StreamYard: https://streamyard.com/pal/d/6164371927990272

What hidden layers of meaning lie within the traditions of the Pesach Seder? Join us on the Everyday Judaism Podcast to unpack the rich tapestry of Jewish customs and rituals. From the special blessings recited over Matzah to the challenges of keeping a log cabin warm on Shabbat without kindling a fire, we explore the practical and spiritual dimensions of these observances. We offer profound insights into the significance of the Kittel—a garment symbolizing mortality—and the reasons behind wearing white during sacred times like Pesach, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur. Plus, discover why red wine is chosen over white at the Seder as a tribute to royalty and remembrance, adding depth to your holiday experience.We also dive into the importance of engaging with the story of the Maggid during the Seder, highlighting the value of connection and understanding beyond mere recitation. We address insightful community questions, inviting listeners to submit their queries for future episodes, fostering an interactive and enriching dialogue. As we wrap up, we express our gratitude for your participation and encourage continued engagement. Our commitment to producing quality Jewish content is unwavering, and your support plays a vital role in this journey. Don't miss this opportunity for a week filled with learning and inspiration.In this episode of Ask Away we address these various topics:Pesach Seder Customs and Traditions: Blessing over Matzah, Shabbat fire prohibitions, Kittel garment, Red wine symbolism, Mah Nishtana and engaging with the Maggid story during the Seder.Other Community Q&A: The importance of language in human interaction and its connection to environment and perception.And much more ... Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #34) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on  March 30, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on April 27, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#AskAway, #Halacha, #Jewishlaw, #Jewishtraditions, #PesachSeder, #matzah, #kittel, #mortality, #RoshHashanah, #YomKippur, #white, #redwine ★ Support this podcast ★

What hidden layers of meaning lie within the traditions of the Pesach Seder? Join us on the Everyday Judaism Podcast to unpack the rich tapestry of Jewish customs and rituals. From the special blessings recited over Matzah to the challenges of keeping a log cabin warm on Shabbat without kindling a fire, we explore the practical and spiritual dimensions of these observances. We offer profound insights into the significance of the Kittel—a garment symbolizing mortality—and the reasons behind wearing white during sacred times like Pesach, Rosh Hashanah, and Yom Kippur. Plus, discover why red wine is chosen over white at the Seder as a tribute to royalty and remembrance, adding depth to your holiday experience.We also dive into the importance of engaging with the story of the Maggid during the Seder, highlighting the value of connection and understanding beyond mere recitation. We address insightful community questions, inviting listeners to submit their queries for future episodes, fostering an interactive and enriching dialogue. As we wrap up, we express our gratitude for your participation and encourage continued engagement. Our commitment to producing quality Jewish content is unwavering, and your support plays a vital role in this journey. Don't miss this opportunity for a week filled with learning and inspiration.In this episode of Ask Away we address these various topics:Pesach Seder Customs and Traditions: Blessing over Matzah, Shabbat fire prohibitions, Kittel garment, Red wine symbolism, Mah Nishtana and engaging with the Maggid story during the Seder.Other Community Q&A: The importance of language in human interaction and its connection to environment and perception.And much more ... Please submit your questions at askaway@torchweb.org_____________The Everyday Judaism Podcast is dedicated to learning, understanding and appreciating the greatness of Jewish heritage and the Torah through the simplified, concise study of Halacha, Jewish Law, thereby enhancing our understanding of how Hashem wants us to live our daily lives in a Jewish way._____________This Podcast Series is Generously Underwritten by Marshall & Doreen LernerDownload & Print the Everyday Judaism Halacha Notes:https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1RL-PideM42B_LFn6pbrk8MMU5-zqlLG5This episode (Ep. #34) of the Everyday Judaism Podcast by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe of TORCH is dedicated to my dearest friends, Marshall & Doreen Lerner! May Hashem bless you and always lovingly accept your prayer for good health, success and true happiness!!!Recorded in the TORCH Centre - Levin Family Studio (B) to a live audience on  March 30, 2025, in Houston, Texas.Released as Podcast on April 27, 2025_____________DONATE to TORCH: Please consider supporting the podcasts by making a donation to help fund our Jewish outreach and educational efforts at https://www.torchweb.org/support.php. Thank you!_____________SUBSCRIBE and LISTEN to other podcasts by Rabbi Aryeh Wolbe: NEW!! Prayer Podcast: https://prayerpodcast.transistor.fm/episodesJewish Inspiration Podcast: https://inspiration.transistor.fm/episodesParsha Review Podcast: https://parsha.transistor.fm/episodesLiving Jewishly Podcast: https://jewishly.transistor.fm/episodesThinking Talmudist Podcast: https://talmud.transistor.fm/episodesUnboxing Judaism Podcast: https://unboxing.transistor.fm/episodesRabbi Aryeh Wolbe Podcast Collection: https://collection.transistor.fm/episodesFor a full listing of podcasts available by TORCH at https://www.TORCHpodcasts.com_____________EMAIL your questions, comments, and feedback: awolbe@torchweb.org_____________Please visit www.torchweb.org to see a full listing of our outreach and educational resources available in the Greater Houston area!_____________#AskAway, #Halacha, #Jewishlaw, #Jewishtraditions, #PesachSeder, #matzah, #kittel, #mortality, #RoshHashanah, #YomKippur, #white, #redwine ★ Support this podcast ★

An alternative approach to IVF, a victory for UK women, and two very different Seders. Plus, moving books with many hands make light work, Cal Thomas on Iran's nuclear aspirations, and the Thursday morning newsSupport The World and Everything in It today at wng.org/donate.Additional support comes from LIFE International, fighting the scourge of abortion globally, teaching about The Father's Heart for Life. LifeInternational.comAnd from I Witness, an immersive audio drama exploring stories of faith and transformation. On podcast apps or at iwitnesspod.com

Revisiting the WZO controversy What's the difference between this and joining the Knesset? Why's this difference than the Moetzes pushing Avi Schnall to run specifically as a democrat? Is this the old age Hashkafic Machlokes between Satmar and Brisk VS the Agudah? Why did they stop second Seder in BMG for a political rally? with Rabbi Avi Shafran – Spokesman for the Agudah – 11:27 The Tzedaka Generation Have we lost our priorities to the glitz and the glamor? Are we giving large glamorous Tzedakahs at the expense of our local institutions? Should you give money to an out-of-town Yeshiva or Kollel when your son's Yeshivah can't make its budget? Should we be sending our daughters to seminaries due to the tuition prices? How much does a Frum Family need today to get by? with Reb Shalom Ber Sorotzkin – Premier Fundraising Rosh Hayeshiva of our generation – 29:41 with Mr. Yisroel Orzel – Longtime President, Yeshiva of Spring Valley – 43:50 with Rabbi Yitzchok Gottdiener – Executive Director, Yeshivah Torah Vodaas – 59:13 with Rabbi Shimon Taub –  Author, Laws of Tzedakah and Ma'aser – 1:13:34 מראי מקומות   

Patrick tackles tough family conversations, like handling confusing messages about gender with grandkids and standing firm in faith when it’s unpopular. Patrick answers questions about abstaining from meat during Holy Week, clears up misunderstandings about Catholic customs, and offers advice on enjoying music that fits Catholic values. He explains why some parishes shorten Easter Vigil readings and addresses whether Catholics need to host Seder meals. Maureen - My 5-year-old grandson told me that some boys don't have penises. How am I supposed to respond to this? It seems like child abuse. (01:50) Email – What counts as a Vigil Mass? (07:41) Mischa - Can you recommend any ways I can ethically listen to popular music that is not specifically religious, but is not in conflict with Catholic values? (09:21 Andrew - How is Church fairing with respect and solemnity of Triduum? (12:43) Maggie - In Mexico, we had a tradition to abstain from meat during the entire Holy Week? is this just a cultural tradition? (22:06) Robert – Are there any comments from the early Church Father's on what Our Lord was doing in the Temple? (29:12) Maribel - The Vatican website says that the local bishops have further authority in this practice. The US conference of Bishops are clear in this but in Mexico, some bishops have said that people can eat chicken. Hence the confusion among these people. (34:47) Lilly - If we die in state of grace, does Jesus remember our sins? Will he reveal all of our sins? (37:25) Carmen - Do Catholics make Seder meals on Holy Thursday? Is there a good Holy Thursday meal? (42:51)

Patrick highlights why Catholics should be cautious about joining Jewish Seder meals, explaining that Church teaching sees these rituals as fulfilled in the Mass. He explores how understanding the roots of the faith matters, but curiosity doesn’t replace what the Mass already provides. Patrick also discusses music choices that fit with Catholic values, the real meaning of Divine Mercy Sunday, and ways to keep Easter traditions focused on Christ. Sacred Music on Relevant Radio (00:32) Email – Could the increased questions about the Seder be connected to The Chosen? Patty - Seder Meal. My kids were at a Christian school where Jewish kids attended and we used to organize a Seder Dinner to be in solidarity with them. (06:18) Claudine (email) - Well it's obvious you've never experienced a seder meal or you would never have said that it was not needed! The seder meal that we Christians experience shows how everything that was eaten points to Christ! I can't believe that you don't know about this! It's a shame! (16:35) Eli (email) - I think it's just a reflection of our society embracing everything without giving much thought to the wisdom of that. It's hip and cool - and SENSITIVE - to embrace everybody/everything. It's kind of an off-shoot of DEI. Our society has taken inclusivity to a crazy extreme. Shannon - if Jesus' death on cross was sufficient for our sin, why do we need to confess to a priest? Sandy - Seder meal. Our Catholic Church sponsored a Seder meal. The priest said it was so we can learn about Jewish roots and that we were not participating but teaching about it. (32:33) *Cesar (email) – Are Easter eggs beneficial to have as a part of the celebration for the kids? It could be educational, but are there any better ways to celebrate for young children? (38:44) Cody - How does Divine Mercy Sunday work and how do you obtain grace from it? (42:04)

Volume 41 of Brad & Mira For the Culture...Mira's disastrous Seder experience...Brad goes karaoke singing for the first time....Brad's friend Adam calls in to issue a hostile tirade...farewell to The Baldwins....billionaire losers in space...the Epstein-Gates affair...contemplating Coachella...and more... *** Otherppl with Brad Listi is a weekly podcast featuring in-depth interviews with today's leading writers. Available where podcasts are available: Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, etc. Subscribe to Brad Listi's email newsletter. Support the show on Patreon Merch Twitter Instagram  TikTok Bluesky Email the show: letters [at] otherppl [dot] com The podcast is a proud affiliate partner of Bookshop, working to support local, independent bookstores. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Unholy is going live in London!Join Yonit Levi and Jonathan Freedland for a special night of news and surprises—live on stage, June 8th 2025. If you've ever wanted to see the podcast come to life, now's your chance. Reserve your seat now via the link—space is limited, and we'd love to see you there! https://bit.ly/UnholyLondonLive Whether or not you found the Afikoman this year, consider this our Unholy offering for Pesach: a carefully curated collection of six standout moments from the past year's conversations. A kind of audio Seder plate—without the Maror. Yonit and Jonathan revisit conversations with Rachel Maddow, Van Jones, Nas Daily, Aviva Seigel, Alex Edelman and Rabbi Angela Buchdahl. From politics to identity, comedy to community, these voices offer the perspective needed for this moment of reflection and renewal. Rachel MaddowRachel Maddow is the host of The Rachel Maddow Show on MSNBC, known for her in-depth political analysis. She is also the author of several books, including Prequel: An American Fight Against Fascism.Van JonesVan Jones is a political commentator on CNN and served as a special advisor to President Barack Obama. He is also the co-founder of multiple non-profit organisations focused on criminal justice reform and environmental advocacy.Nas Daily (Nuseir Yassin)Nuseir Yassin, known as Nas Daily, is a content creator who rose to prominence through one-minute daily videos showcasing global stories. He is the founder of Nas Company, a platform for digital education and storytelling.Aviva SeigelViva Seigel is an Israeli who was abducted from her home on October 7th and was held in captivity by Hamas in Gaza for 51 days. Her husband, Keith, was abduted as well and was released after 484 days in Gaza. Alex EdelmanAlex Edelman is a stand-up comedian and writer known for his acclaimed solo show Just For Us, which tackles themes of Jewish identity and white nationalism. He has performed on international stages and written for television.Rabbi Angela BuchdahlRabbi Angela Buchdahl is the Senior Rabbi of Central Synagogue in New York City and the first Asian-American ordained as both rabbi and cantor. She is a leading voice in American Judaism and interfaith dialogue. Unholy is going live in London!Join Yonit Levi and Jonathan Freedland for a special night of news and surprises—live on stage, June 8th 2025. If you've ever wanted to see the podcast come to life, now's your chance. Reserve your seat now via the link—space is limited, and we'd love to see you there! https://bit.ly/UnholyLondonLive

With over 1,000 kosher wines from across all major winegrowing regions, Royal Wine is the largest importer (and producer and distributor) of kosher wine in the world. Gabe Geller, Director of PR & Wine Education, discusses the market for kosher wine, how and where it is made, and how Orthodox Jews hear about them.Detailed Show Notes: Gabe's background, at Royal Wine >9 years, wine industry for 16 years (retail, consulting, marketing)Royal Wine - world's leading importer, producer, distributor of kosher wineIn US, carries >1,000 kosher wines from every major wine producing regionOwns Kedem, Herzog, and other brandsCan't taste kosher wine, similar to other winesProduced only by Sabbath observant JewsNo non-kosher ingredients or processing agents (e.g. - fining agents)Has kosher certification on the bottleMevushal (“boiled”) - for some kosher wines, uses flash pasteurization which is also used by some non-kosher wineries; tend to taste more approachable initially, but ages longerIsrael #1 producer of kosher wine (~5M cases), USA (~350k cases; mostly Herzog), France (~350k cases across many wineries)Kosher wine marketObservant Jews drink kosher wine year-roundJews use wine in almost every religious ceremony, considered the “holy beverage”Passover 1st night dinner (Seder), every adult is required to drink 4 cups of wine (can by any kosher wine or grape juice), each cup symbolizes 1 way God saved Jews from slaveryJews who don't do kosher normally will for Seder40% of kosher wine in the US is purchased for Passover (used to be 60%, declining as more quality kosher wines available, so more is being bought year-round)Top markets - Israel, US (NY/NJ #1, FL, CA - CA Jews drink less wine than East Coast Jews), FranceIn top kosher markets, large retailers (e.g. - Total Wine) will have a kosher selection, some kosher wine stores, and online retailers (e.g. - Wine.com) also carry kosherOf the 15.7M Jewish people (2023), only a small portion keep kosherSome kosher wines sold to the general market (e.g. - Bartenura Moscato #1 imported Moscato the past 15 years, most don't know it's kosher; Jeunesse semi-dry wines have a distinct consumer appeal)Israeli politics / Gaza war have lead to people buying more to support IsraelMarketing to the Orthodox communityIdentify sects with stricter mevushal rules (e.g. - 101F vs 105F) and promote specific brands that meet thosePrint advertising big (English, Yiddish), many do not use as much internet, none on Sabbath, take in news via printWhatsapp #1 social media for Orthodox Jews (or Telegram) Get access to library episodes Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

As we celebrate Passover during the current climate, Rabbi Shira talks to Hanna about what Judaism says about violence, resistance and freedom. And they speak to a Jewish gun owner about his choice to protect himself. More on preventing harm and stumbling blocks in the TorahSupport Chutzpod!Submit a questionContact Chutzpod!Follow Hanna on InstagramFollow Shira on InstagramFollow Shira on FacebookFollow Chutzpod on FacebookFollow Chutzpod on Instagram Learn about your ad choices: dovetail.prx.org/ad-choices

MyLife Chassidus Applied: Where YOUR questions are answeredDonate now: https://mylife500.comFor recording visit the archive page or your favorite podcast carrier.Rabbi Jacobson will discuss the following topics:Yud Alef Nissan • How do we honor the Rebbe's 123rd birthday? 02:17 • What is the significance of the number eleven? 17:30 • How is it related to the Rebbe's leadership? 17:50 • Is there a connection to the Rambam's birthday on Erev Pesach? 20:08Personalizing the experience • Why is Yetziyas Mitzrayim so central to life? 29:10 • Why do we need to envision ourselves leaving Mitzrayim in every generation and every day? 29:10 • Why do the Ten Commandments begin with I am your G-d that took you out of Egypt and not that Created heaven and earth? 25:38 • If we must remember the Egyptian exodus every day, why is Pesach only eight days? 31:30 • How would you advise me to use the extra time on my hands during this Yom Tov season? 36:20 • In addition to addressing negative Pesach experiences, can you also focus on positive and beautiful elements? 39:39 • What are some prayers we can say the week before Pesach to ask Hashem for extra blessings in our lives, for a living, good health etc.? 42:48Chametz • Why are we forbidden from eating chametz? 45:56 • Why are there extra chumras on Pesach more than all year round? 47:56 • Why do we use a feather, spoon and candle when searching for chametz? 52:23 • Why did they add the chumra not to eat chametz from Erev Pesach in the morning? 51:00 • Why don't Ashkenazim eat kitniyot (legumes), while some Sefardim do? 01:00:40 • Why don't we eat gebrokts? 59:05Seder • Did the Rebbe ever tell us what is his favorite part of the Seder? 01:01:40 • Why do we eat matzah – due to it being the bread of affliction or due to the Jews not having time to wait until the dough rose? 01:01:51 • Is eating matzah a rectification of the sin of eating from the Tree of Knowledge? 01:05:50 • How does eating certain foods such as matzah, horseradish, and charoset dip align our souls with the energy of freedom? 01:04:09Last Days • What is the connection between the last day of Pesach and Moshiach? 01:10:47 • Why do we call them “four questions” when there are actually five, including mah nishtana? 01:07:29 • Why are there four questions? 01:08:37 • What do we say that during the year we don't dip even once, when in fact we dip the challah in salt? 01:09:10

There are times when a person sets out to do something and, all of a sudden, he hits a roadblock. He tries everything he can to go around it, but to no avail. The roadblock may come in the form of a person denying him or a circumstance denying him. And he is left helplessly to try to figure out what to do next. In those frustrating circumstances, a person could easily lose his cool, but then he will have failed his test. He must internalize, it is not the person or the circumstance that is stopping him, it is only Hashem. If he could react in those situations with emunah, it will elevate him so much and hopefully, one day, Hashem will reveal to him the goodness in why He had to stop him. Shmuel Herman found himself walking around, his chest tight with anxiety churning inside of him. He couldn't focus on his learning or anything else for that matter. He was being pressured in all directions because he was turning 30 and still not married. He was learning in Israel and dreading going back home to London for Pesach to face more relatives who were going to pressure him. Then came an attractive offer for him to travel to Washington to help Jews make a Seder for Pesach . The kiruv organization that invited him would provide everything, including his plane ticket, three meals a day and accommodations and even a little compensation. He happily accepted the offer and put in a great deal of effort in preparing. During the 12 hour flight, he reviewed all the classes he prepared on the Haggadah and the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim . He also prepared some talks on the topic of emunah. Finally, he landed in New York, anticipating catching his connecting flight to Washington. When it was finally his turn at the border control, the airport official looked at his passport and ordered him to go to a small side office. A stern security officer was behind a desk there and he began interrogating. The questions continued on and on and while Shmuel kept glancing at the clock, hoping to make his connecting flight, the security officer kept interrogating. When Shmuel mentioned he had a flight to catch, the security officer became angry saying, "I'm not interested in your connecting flight. Right now you are being interrogated and as far as I'm concerned, you can turn around and go back to Israel." Then Shmuel yelled out, "I didn't do anything! Why is this happening?" And the officer got even angrier. There was nothing Shmuel could do, he was stuck there and was going to miss the flight and potentially his seminar as well. When they finally let him go, he went to an airport desk asking if there was a flight he could get on to Washington. Everything was booked for the next two days, which meant he would not be able to get to his destination. Another Jew was standing there and overheard Shmuel saying he didn't know what he was going to do for Pesach . After speaking to him for a few minutes, the man invited Shmuel to come have the Seder at his house. With no choice, Shmuel accepted. He was a big hit there, as he was well prepared for the Seder and he gave that family a memorable experience. The man of the house, Mr. Braun, suggested his niece, who was 29, as a shidduch . And PS, not too long after that, Shmuel got engaged to her. When Shmuel was in that security office being interrogated, he couldn't imagine anything good from him missing the flight and inspiring Jews on Pesach . But in hindsight, he realized, everyone was just a puppet in Hashem's master plan to bring him his long awaited shidduch.

SUPPORT MY WORK:SUBSTACK: https://dersh.substack.com/The Dershow staring Alan Dershowitz* APPLE PODCAST: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-dershow/id1531775772SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/show/7Cx3Okc9mMNWtQyKJZoqVO?si=1164392dd4144a99_________________________________________________________FOLLOW ME:TWITTER: https://twitter.com/AlanDershRUMBLE: https://rumble.com/user/Sav_saysLOCALS: https://dershow.locals.com/YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/c/TheDershowWithAlanDershowitz________Youtube: @thedershowwithalendershowitz

Patrick shares Rebecca's path back to the Catholic Church and her renewed yearning for the Eucharist. Christine tells the story of her daughter, who makes the difficult choice to end an engagement to maintain a shared Catholic faith in her future family. Patrick engages in a discussion on understanding natural death with a retired physician and answers listener questions about annulments and spiritual direction. The focus is on seeking truth and growing spiritually. Becky (email) - I’m having a problem finding a church (00:36) Christine - Catholics marrying protestants: my daughter was engaged to a wonderful Lutheran man. Since they were mixed faith we were concerned. But I am so grateful because, after your show, I prayed for them, and they broke off the engagement because she wanted her husband to raise their kids in the faith. (07:07) Liz (email) - I’m in my mid 40s and have several kids. We desperately want another one. I do have some health issues, but the doctor thinks it would be okay to try. Would that be selfish of us to try to have another since risks go up with age and health issues? (21:01) Sarah – I was told to abstain from confession and communion until my annulment is completed (23:07) Michael - What is considered a natural death? (36:40) Doug – There’s a Seder dinner at my church with a Rabbi speaking. Is it normal to have this? (43:38)

Donald Trump tariffies the global economy, SCOTUS is 9-0 for due process, and RFK Jr says you can have one measles vaccine, as a treat. Rachel Bloom and Robby Hoffman gather ‘round to share matzah, marriage advice and mortal terror. Lovett's mother and future mother-and-law share a mom-umental first meeting on stage, and we close out the show with all the dayenus you can use this Passover week."Rachel Bloom: Death, Let Me Do My Special" is streaming now on Netflix.Catch Robby Hoffman on "Hacks" steaming now on Max as well as "Dying for Sex" streaming on Hulu.See Robby live in Portland, Maine at the Empire Comedy Club on May 2nd and 3rd and at the Brea Improv on May 23rd.

Dara Horn, winner of three National Jewish Book Awards and Kirkus Prize finalist, joins Zibby to discuss her irreverent, moving, and hilariously deadpan graphic novel for young readers, ONE LITTLE GOAT. Dara explains how she uses a talking scapegoat and a never-ending Seder to bring ancient stories to life for readers of all ages. She shares her childhood obsession with the passage of time and her deep connection to the Jewish tradition, and then dives into her acclaimed book, PEOPLE LOVE DEAD JEWS, touching on the shared themes between the two books: memory, Jewish identity, and how history lives on in us.Purchase on Bookshop:One Little Goat: https://bit.ly/4lrcajoPeople Love Dead Jews: https://bit.ly/42st4WkShare, rate, & review the podcast, and follow Zibby on Instagram @zibbyowens! Now there's more! Subscribe to Moms Don't Have Time to Read Books on Acast+ and get ad-free episodes. https://plus.acast.com/s/moms-dont-have-time-to-read-books. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Happy Passover! Chag Sameach! The holiday known simultaneously as Pesach (Passover), Chag HaMatzot (Matzah-Fest), Z'man Cheruteinu (Time of our freedom), and Chag Ha-Aviv (Spring/Barley-Fest) has arrived. Dan Libenson and Lex Rofeberg, co-hosts of Judaism Unbound, are joined by guests Daniel Spiro and Marques Hollie for a conversation that explores how we can get more wacky and creative with our Passover seders (traditional ritualized Passover meals) -- along with how we might play with the rest of the holiday, once the seder(s) have concluded.-------------------For a whole library of Judaism Unbound's Passover resources, including past podcast episodes, digital afikoman hunts, seder supplements, videos, and more...just head to JudaismUnbound.com/passover.-------------------New UnYeshiva mini-courses, beginning just after Passover, are now open for registration! Learn more about Jewish Theology Unbound, Untangling Tselem Elohim, and Moses, Tzipporah and Us (Powerful Interfaith Families, Past and Present) by heading to JudaismUnbound.com/classes.Access full shownotes for this episode via this link. If you're enjoying Judaism Unbound, please help us keep things going with a one-time or monthly tax-deductible donation -- support Judaism Unbound by clicking here!

R Akiva's seder and the question of the Premature Exodus. Also, Lavan and his role inthe Egypt story

With the first nights of Passover coming up this weekend, listeners might be thinking about what to cook for their Seder tables. Jake Cohen, the cookbook author behind Jew-ish, and I Could Nosh, shares his tips, tricks and recipes for Passover cooking. Plus, listeners call in with their secrets for spicing up their charoset, or making the most of matzoh brei for the bread-less week ahead.

Forward Into Light: The Pesach Perspective Pesach is more than a story of the past—it's a mission for the present. True freedom is not just leaving Egypt, but choosing to live with purpose. The Rebbe teaches that freedom isn't comfort—it's commitment. Each mitzvah, each step, brings the world closer to redemption. As we sit at the Seder, we don't just remember the Exodus—we embody it, reclaim it, and move forward into light. Especially this year, as pain and purpose collide, may we be the generation that doesn't just repeat history—but completes it. Refuah Shlema for: Pnina bas Shoshana Miriam and all who need healing. Dedicated in loving memory of: Edward Ben Efraim | Shlomo Ben Edward | Yirachmiel Daniel Ben Gedalia

We begin the Seder with the Ha Lachma Anya , which speaks about the matzah and ends with the words, "Now we are still in Galut. We hope to be in Eretz Yisrael with the Beit HaMikdash before next year's Seder." Rabbi Ronen Sharabani gave a beautiful explanation in his new Haggada Me'afar Kumi about why we begin with this. Chazal tell us that the final ge'ula will take place in the month of Nisan. So, when the month begins, all of Klal Yisrael is hoping to be in Yerushalayim with the Korban Pesach by the night of the Seder. However, if Lel HaSeder arrives and once again Mashiach has not come, it could cause a person to enter the Seder with feelings of despair, thinking: "We've made this request of L'shanah Haba'ah B'Yerushalayim every year of our entire lives—and it still hasn't happened. What's going to give us chizuk to think that things will ever change?" For this, the Rabbis tell us to begin the Seder speaking about the matza. The Seforno writes on the pasuk describing Yosef Hatzaddik being rushed out of prison that this is the way of all salvations that Hashem brings—they come in an instant. Even when it looks like there's no hope in sight, things can suddenly change. And this is what happened in Mitzrayim. The pasuk says they were rushed out of Egypt without enough time for their dough to rise. Matza is the symbol of an instant salvation. And so it says about the future geula : פתאום יבוא אל היכלו —Mashiach is going to come suddenly. When we internalize that the salvations of Hashem come in an instant, we will never despair, because we know everything can change in a moment's notice. What we see today has nothing to do with tomorrow—and the same applies to the difficulties people are currently experiencing. No matter how long it's been, no matter how dismal it seems, salvation can always come in an instant. A woman told me she got married about twenty years ago and was looking forward to a joyful home filled with children. After seven long years of waiting for their miracle, they were blessed with a precious daughter who indeed filled their hearts with the joy they had hoped for. For years after that, they tried every possible method to have another child, but it wasn't working. They delved deeply into learning and practicing emunah , and then, with the advice of their rabbi, they decided to take a pause from all their efforts and instead focus on enjoying the life they had. Especially since they were making so many efforts, they risked attributing success or failure to their own actions rather than to Hashem. They spent a year focusing more on spirituality, adopting a healthier lifestyle, eating better, exercising regularly, and appreciating everything Hashem had already given them. Then they went back to the doctor to try another treatment. Everything was looking good. They were awaiting results from a certain test, and when the results came back positive, they were thrilled. Even the doctor was elated. He told them they needed to repeat the test two more times. The second time, the numbers were even better. But on the third test, the results took a turn the other way. After eight long years of waiting for their second child, it appeared that once again they were going to be let down. That night, they called a hotline for emunah , and amazingly, there was a story shared about a childless couple who had been told by their doctor that they would never have children. The husband went for a drive afterward to clear his mind, and when he returned home, he found that his wife had set the table with their finest china. She told him, "We're going to celebrate all we have, despite the sorrowful news." The next morning, at 5 a.m., they received a phone call from the fertility clinic saying it had been a mistake—and that she actually was going to have a child after all. This woman and her husband took that story as a direct message from Hashem. They picked themselves up and enjoyed that Shabbat more than ever. They sang with their 8-year-old miracle girl. They expressed gratitude and celebrated all the blessings that Hashem had given them. That Motzaei Shabbat , they went for another test, and amazingly, everything changed for the better. Baruch Hashem , that year, they were blessed with their second miracle baby. The salvations of Hashem always come in an instant. This is the chizuk we give ourselves at the beginning of the Seder, and this is something we must always keep in mind. B'ezrat Hashem , we should see the Geula Shelema and celebrate this holiday in Yerushalayim with the Korban Pesach. But even if that doesn't happen— even then —it doesn't mean the geula can't come a second later. Shabbat Shalom and Chag Sameach.

LISTEN!!!

Children's book author Richard Michelson new book is“Next Year in the White House: Barack Obama's First Presidential Seder.” It tells the true story of how a small Seder dinner on the campaign trail inspired Barack Obama to bring the tradition into the White House and host the first ever Presidential Passover celebration.

The Night of Faith Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

Gedale Fenster talks about the psychological 15 steps for the Seder.

As Passover approaches, Yael and Schwab dive into one of the most fascinating—and oldest—archaeological artifacts ever discovered: the Merneptah Stele. We travel back to 1209 BCE to explore this 3,200-year-old slab of Egyptian granite, which contains the first historical mention of Israel. The episode explores what the Merneptah Stele tells us about ancient Israel, Pharaohs, and the real-world backdrop of the Exodus narrative. Listen to Yael and Schwab's informative and delightful conversation and delve into the sources to enrich your Seder with something that's older than the Haggadah itself. Click here to see an image of the Merneptah Stele. Click here for a recap and to read some of the sources used in the episode Be in touch. We want to hear from you. Write to us at nerds@unpacked.media. This podcast was brought to you by Unpacked, a brand of OpenDor Media. Follow @unpackedmedia on Instagram and check out Unpacked on youtube. ------------------- For other podcasts from Unpacked, check out: Jewish History Nerds Soulful Jewish Living Stars of David with Elon Gold Unpacking Israeli History Wondering Jews

The Vilna Gaon once said that the hardest mitzvah in the entire Torah to fulfill is being happy on the holiday. The reason it's so difficult is because it requires us to be in a constant state of joy for all seven days – no worry, no sadness, no aggravation. This is hard even for a person who's blessed with a family, with a house, with parnasa. But what about when it comes to people who don't have those same blessings? How could they be in a constant state of joy? For some, the holidays are the saddest part of the year. People who don't have families; people who don't have a place to be. They listen as everybody else makes their holiday plans and they feel left out. An older single woman said she wished she could just go to sleep before the Seder begins and wake up the next morning to a new day. She dreads having to sit at the table with all of her married siblings and their children. She is always asked to help with this child or to babysit that child. Everyone figures since she doesn't have her own family, she's available to be at everyone else's service. Everyone tells her, "Don't worry, this is going to be the last holiday for you without a husband. By next year you'll be married, b'ezrat Hashem." She doesn't want to hear it anymore. She wished she could just skip the whole thing. There are people who are ba'aleh teshuva and their families don't have a real Seder. They don't have anywhere to go; everyone else is busy with their own families. There are single mothers who try to play the role of the mother and father and give their children a real Seder, but it's never ideal. There are single parents who are separated from their children, who have to be lonely guests at other people's tables. "Holidays are supposed to be family time," they say, "why can't we be with our families as well?" Their pain is very great. How could they possibly fulfill this mitzvah of being happy on the holiday? It is an extremely difficult task, but if they could find it within themselves to try and accomplish, they will receive unimaginable rewards for it. Chazal tell us, doing a mitzvah with difficulty is worth a hundred times more than doing the same mitzvah without difficulty. Rabbi Dessler explains, to do any mitzvah with even the slightest amount of difficulty is worth a hundred times more than doing it without that difficulty. If there is more than a slight amount of difficulty, then the mitzvah becomes a hundred times greater than before, and so on. And if it's an extremely difficult mitzvah, it could be worth thousands and thousands of times greater. We can't fathom the reward even for an easy mitzvah, how much more so something very difficult. The Zohar HaKadosh writes, when a person sits by his table at the Seder and says over the story of Yitziat Mitzrayim, Hashem assembles the angels together and brags to them about how His People rejoice in His salvation. Imagine if someone who has every reason to want to skip the Seder but, nonetheless, strengthens himself and still says the praises of Hashem and still manages to be happy, what would Hashem tell the angels then? When a poor man brings a flour offering as a korban, the pasuk says, "ונפש כי תקריב – he's bringing his soul." The Gemara explains, because it's so hard for him to bring even that flour offering, Hashem considers it as if he brought his own soul as a korban. Now, if for a person to give up his money to serve Hashem is considered like he gave his soul, what about if a person is able to sacrifice his emotions, to say, "Hashem, You know how hard it is for me to go through another holiday like this, but I'm going to lift myself up, I'm going to do the best that I can and serve You the way that You asked, with joy. I'll sit at a table with strangers and forget about my problems and just focus on praising You. Or I'll sit at a table without a spouse, or without children, and I'll overcome my sadness to do this mitzvah the best way." That avodah would be unbelievable. And it's not all or nothing, every little effort counts. For some, just getting to the Seder and putting on a smile is already a heroic act. May Hashem give all of us the strength to rejoice this Pesach, and may we see the ultimate salvation of Mashiach Tzidkenu. Amen.

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The Afikoman must be eaten with Heseba – meaning, while leaning on the left side. The Sages forbade eating after the Afikoman so that the taste of the Afikoman will remain in one's mouth for the duration of the night. Therefore, after one finishes eating the Afikoman, he may not eat anything else, and should immediately recite Birkat Ha'mazon. Furthermore, one may not drink anything after eating the Afikoman besides the final two cups of wine. It is permissible, however, to drink water after the Afikoman, including carbonated water, and the Halachic authorities rule that one may also drink tea or coffee. The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909), in Od Yosef Hai, writes that if one needs to add some sugar to the tea or coffee in order to be able to drink it, he may do so. Hacham Abraham Antebe (Aleppo, 1765-1858) was likewise lenient in this regard, and this was also the practice among the Jewish communities in Egypt, as documented in the work Nehar Misrayim. This ruling is mentioned by the Hid"a (Rav Haim Yosef David Azulai, 1724-1806), as well, and this is the position of Hacham Ovadia Yosef. Hacham Bension Abba Shaul (Israel, 1923-1998) recommends drinking the tea or coffee without sugar, but he rules that one may add sugar if necessary. (This is also the Halacha regarding drinking before Shaharit in the morning; one may drink tea or coffee, and he may add sugar if he needs.) Other beverages, however, may not be drunk after eating the Afikoman. In the "Ha'rahaman" section of Birkat Ha'mazon, we add the special "Ha'rahaman" for Yom Tob ("Hu Yanhilenu Le'yom She'kulo Tob"). It should be noted that the custom in Halab (Aleppo), as documented in the work Derech Eretz, was not to add special "Ha'rahaman" prayers on Shabbat or Yom Tob, and to recite only the standard prayers that are included in the regular weekday Birkat Ha'mazon. Clearly, however, our community has since adopted the widespread custom to add the special "Ha'rahaman" prayers for Shabbat and Yom Tob. Immediately after Birkat Ha'mazon, one drinks the third cup of wine while leaning on his left side. One who drank without leaning must drink another cup of wine. After drinking the third cup, some have the custom to pour a special cup in honor of Eliyahu Ha'nabi and to leave it on the table throughout the remainder of the Seder. The Rama (Rav Moshe Isserles of Cracow, 1525-1572) cites a custom among Ashkenazim to then open the door as an expression of faith that Hashem will protect us on this special night, in the hope that Mashiah will come in the merit of our faith. As Eliyahu will come to herald our redemption, a special cup is poured in his honor. However, although this is the custom in many communities, the custom among Syrian Jews is to neither pour this cup for Eliyahu nor open the door. The Hallel is then recited, slowly and with festive song. The Shulhan Aruch writes that it is preferable to arrange for a Zimun (three or more men) to be present at the Seder so that the Hallel can be recited responsively, as it was in ancient times, when one person would recite "Hodu L'Hashem Ki Tob," and the others would respond, "Ki Le'olam Hasdo." Nevertheless, if a Zimun is not present, the Hallel may still be recited. The custom among Syrian Jews is to recite the regular full Hallel, followed by the chapter of Tehillim (136) "Hodu' Le'Hashem" ("Hallel Ha'gadol"), "Nishmat," "Yishtabah" (until just before the end), and then the Beracha of "Yehalelucha." The Tur (Rabbenu Yaakob Ben Asher, Germany-Spain, 12269-1343) ruled that "Yehalelucha" should be recited immediately after the standard chapters of Hallel, but our custom follows the view of the Bet Yosef (commentary to the Tur by Maran, author of the Shulhan Aruch) to recite "Yehalelucha" at the very end. After reciting the concluding Beracha of "Melech Mehulal Ba'tishbahot," we drink the fourth cup of wine, without first reciting "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen." One must drink a Rebi'it and then recite the Beracha Aharona. Some people do not drink the fourth cup until the very end of the Seder, after singing the traditional songs, but this is improper; the fourth cup should be drunk upon the conclusion of Hallel. The Shulhan Aruch writes that if one forgot to lean while drinking the fourth cup of wine, and he must therefore drink another cup, he recites a new Beracha of "Boreh Peri Ha'gefen," as this cup was not covered by the Beracha recited earlier. However, Hacham Ovadia Yosef (Hazon Ovadia – Teshubot, Siman 49) clarifies that this applies only if one realized his mistake after drinking the entire cup of wine. If some of the wine was left in the cup, then he adds some wine and drinks a new cup while leaning without first reciting a new Beracha.

Seder night is truly a magical time but how does one overcome any stress and harness that "magic" to connect with their children, their spouse, and Hashem?

**Today's Halacha is dedicated f or the refuah and haslacha of Ronnie, Sharon, Eli and all the children of CARE** The first cup of wine drunk at the Seder is the cup of Kiddush, and the second is drunk at the conclusion of Maggid, after reciting the Beracha of "Asher Ge'alanu Ve'ga'al Et Abotenu." However, despite the fact that the second cup is not drunk until the end of Maggid, Hacham Ovadia Yosef rules that the cup should be poured right before Ma Nishtana, when the children ask their questions. One of the ways we arouse the children's curiosity is by pouring the second cup of wine before beginning the meal. The children do not ask about the first cup, since they are accustomed to beginning the meal with Kiddush, but they are then perplexed when we pour a second cup of wine before proceeding to the meal. It is thus appropriate to pour the second cup before Ma Nishtana as part of the effort to arouse the children' curiosity. According to the strict Halacha, one does not have to wash the cup before pouring the second cup of wine. One may simply pour wine into the cup or, as is customary, have somebody else pour for him. According to the Zohar, however, one should rinse the cup before pouring each time at the Seder. And thus although one is certainly allowed to add wine to the cup without first rinsing it, it would be preferable to first rinse the cup to follow the teaching of the Zohar. One should preferably use red wine at the Seder, even if one has white wine which is higher quality than his red wine. Hacham Ovadia rules that one who has difficulty drinking wine may use grape juice at the Seder. One may also use wine for some of the cups and grape juice for the others. There are those who use wine for the first cup – which is the most important, as it also serves the function of Kiddush – and for the last cup, since they will soon be going to sleep so it would not matter if the wine makes them tired. In any event, grape juice is perfectly acceptable for use at the Seder for any or all the cups if one finds it difficult to drink wine. If, for whatever reason, a person will not be drinking the second cup of wine, he nevertheless recites the Beracha of "Asher Ge'alanu," as the Beracha does not depend upon the Misva of the second cup. Some people have the custom that only the head of the household recites the Beracha of "Asher Ge'alanu" while everybody else fulfills their requirement by listening. This practice is perfectly acceptable, and may even be preferable. If this practice is followed, those listening must ensure not to answer "Baruch Hu U'baruch Shemo." If, however, the head of the household does not clearly enunciate all the words, or if he does not have in mind that the others are fulfilling their obligation through his recitation, then everyone should recite the Beracha himself or herself, as they cannot rely on the head of the household's recitation. All the four cups at the Seder must be drunk while leaning to the left, and one who drinks without leaning must drink the cup again while leaning. If one drank the second cup without leaning, he does not repeat the Beracha of "Asher Ge'alanu" when drinking again. It is advisable for the head of the household to announce before the recitation of "Asher Ge'alanu" that everyone should drink while leaning to the left after the recitation.

Join Rabbi Joey Rosenfeld as he guides us through the world and major works of Kabbalah, Hasidic masters, and Jewish philosophy, shedding light on the inner life of the soul. To learn more, visit InwardTorah.org

The "Ke'ara" is the plate which we keep on the table throughout the Seder, and it contains all the special foods eaten at the Seder. One should ensure that the plate contains all the foods throughout the Seder. Meaning, after one partakes of the Karpas, for example, he should keep some leftover Karpas on the Ke'ara. Even though one has already passed that stage of the Seder, it is important that the Ke'ara has on it all the foods, even the Karpas. The salt water, into which one dips the Karpas, does not have to be on the Ke'ara. The custom in our community is to eat specifically celery, which is the food denoted by the word "Karpas." This is the custom that one should follow, as the word "Karpas" alludes to the "Perech Samech" – the backbreaking labor endured by the 600,000 Israelite men in Egypt. Furthermore, Rav Haim Vital (1543-1620) taught that the according to Kabbalah, the numerical value of the word "Karpas" (360) is very significant and alludes to different Names of the Almighty. Before eating the Karpas, we wash our hands the way we do before eating bread. That is, we pour water three times on the right hand and then three times on the left hand. The only difference is that no Beracha is recited upon this washing. It should be noted that the requirement to wash before Karpas relates to a general Halacha that is not connected specifically to Pesah. All year round, before one eats a fruit or vegetable that is moistened with a liquid, he must first wash his hands, without a Beracha. For example, people generally wash grapes and apples before eating them. Assuming the fruit is still wet when one eats it, he must first perform Netilat Yadayim, without a Beracha, before eating. We therefore wash our hands before eating the Karpas which is dipped in salt water. The Kaf Ha'haim laments the fact that most people are unaware of this Halacha, and they wash Netilat Yadayim before Karpas but not before eating wet foods other times during the year. We dip the Karpas in salt water in order to do something unusual that will arouse the children's curiosity at the Seder. Normally, at that point in the meal we eat bread. When they see that we instead dip celery in salt water, they will find this unusual and ask questions. There are also many Kabbalistic concepts underlying the dipping of Karpas, so one must ensure to properly observe this and all customs at the Seder in accordance with tradition. Several works mention the importance of saying or singing the names of the various stages of the Seder (Kadesh, U'rhatz, Karpas, Yahatz, etc.). Before one begins each stage, he should say or sing all the stages starting from Kadesh, and then stop upon reaching the current stage. Before Karpas, for example, one would recite, "Kadesh, U'rhatz, Karpas." The Ben Ish Hai (Rav Yosef Haim of Baghdad, 1833-1909) expounded upon the Kabbalistic significance of each of these words. One must not belittle or neglect these or other traditional customs, as they are all based upon profound, underlying meaning and wisdom. Summary: One washes Netilat Yadayim without a Beracha before Karpas and anytime he prepares to eat a food that is wet. One should use specifically celery for Karpas. After eating the Karpas, one should still make sure that some Karpas remains on the Seder plate. It is proper before each stage of the Seder to state all the stages from Kadesh until the current stage.

On this week's episode of 'The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart': Market Turmoil. Dow futures open down 1,500 points as the impact of President Trump's tariffs continue to take a toll on markets around the world. This comes as Senate Republicans pass a budget plan that is already getting bi-partisan pushback. Rep. Brendan Boyle, the top Democrat on the Budget Committee, tells me why he calls the Republican's plan a betrayal of the middle class. Health Scare. A second child has died of measles in Texas, as the Department of Health and Human Services lays off thousands of workers and attempts to scrap billions in public health grants. I'll discuss the impact with former HHS Sec. Xavier Becerra and two department employees, including one who was fired and told he "deserved it" by a Republican Senator. Faith and Fellowship. A lesson in bridging the divide in these troubled times from the organizers behind the first-ever White House Seder. All that and more on “The Sunday Show with Jonathan Capehart.” 

A personal conversation about creating a Seder that allows us to bring our full selves to the experience, finding an accessible entrance into the essence of Jewish holidays and rituals after becoming a mother, and some of the teachings about the steps of the Seder that have welcomed Chani in. Chani is a wife, mother, poet, writer, and aspiring florist. She's an all around creative, and loves bringing beauty and meaning into everyday life. She dabbles in freelance writing and content creation alongside her work at a preschool and a nonprofit organization. You can find her writing and content on Instagram @chani_lipovenko and Substack (Tulips & Tantrums). Chani can be contacted at chanasmoller@gmail.com. To inquire about sponsorship & advertising opportunities, please email us at info@humanandholy.comTo support our work, visit humanandholy.com/sponsor.Find us on Instagram @humanandholy & subscribe to our channel to stay up to date on all our upcoming conversations ✨Human & Holy podcast is available on all podcast streaming platforms. New episodes every Sunday on Youtube, Spotify, Apple Podcasts, and Google Podcasts.TIMESTAMPS 0:00:00 - Sneak Peek 0:00:37 - Host's Introduction 0:02:03 - Welcome Chani0:02:43 - How it Started 0:04:34 - Reimagining the Seder Experience0:09:56 - Where Am I in This Ritual?0:14:21 - Leaning into the Physical Act of a Mitzvah0:17:35 - Experiencing the Essence of a Holiday0:21:55 - Staying Open to Unexpected Inspiration 0:23:20 - I Can't Recreate My Pre-Baby Life 0:27:10 - Experiencing the Seder as a Personal Journey0:29:02 - Being An Open Vessel to What the Seder Has to Offer 0:31:25 - Bring Your Heartbreak 0:32:28 - The Soul Can Never Be in Exile0:35:19 - Encouraging Questions in Our Judaism 0:38:45 - Encouraging Questions 0:41:25 - The Steps of the Seder Are Leading Us Somewhere0:42:27 - Postpartum: Holding Both Brokenness and Wholeness 0:45:45 - How G-d Sees Us0:48:13 - Opening the Door to Miracles0:51:38 - Allowing Ourselves to be Transformed in Small Ways 0:52:28 - The End of the Seder is the Beginning of Freedom 0:53:09 - Host's Outro

Pesach (Passover) marks the founding event of our nation. We had been enslaved in Egypt for centuries, and in one night the Almighty extracted a nation from amidst a nation with miracles, signs, and wonders. Each Passover we remember and relive that momentous night. We gather together with our family at the Seder, ask the […]

#346> Sponsored by Oren Hizkiya and Shira Berger in honor of their upcoming marriage, בשעה טובה ומוצלחת, may they be Zoche to build a Bayis Ne'eman B'yisrael.> We dicussed Rabbi Binyomin Slonik's bio, why he wrote this work, how unique it was for a rabbi to write a halacha work in Yiddish for women, the lives of Jewish women at the time, style of the work, popularity and legacy of the work, and more.> To purchase "My Dear Daughter: Rabbi Benjamin Slonik and the Education of Jewish Women in Sixteenth-Century Poland":  https://amzn.to/3QRltep> To join the SeforimChatter WhatsApp community: https://chat.whatsapp.com/DZ3C2CjUeD9AGJvXeEODtK>  To support the podcast or to sponsor an episode follow this link: https://seforimchatter.com/support-seforimchatter/or email seforimchatter@gmail.com (Zelle/QP this email address)Support the show

Patrick discusses the following topics during hour 2: Audio - Bill Gates and how better health results in less children Rich - There was a diocese article inviting Catholics to participate in a Jewish Sedar. What you said confused me. Rebecca - Why did Martin Luther say Confession was not a sacrament? Michelle - Seder meals: I have a Jewish friend who is very adamant that Christians should not celebrate Seder but she invited me to her Seder meal. Can I go? Judy - I think with our earth blowing up in flames from climate change and the animals. If we have more kids it's only going to get worse