Podcasts about Study guide

Study Guide There are two general principles employed by the Mishna to determine the order of precedence among sacrifices: A sacrifice offered more frequently takes priority. A sacrifice of greater sanctity takes priority. The Mishna elaborates on which sacrifices are considered more frequent and which are deemed more sanctified. In its discussion of sanctity, it emphasizes the unique attributes of each type of sacrifice and provides examples illustrating the precedence of one sacrifice over another. However, certain situations are not explicitly addressed, and the Gemara raises questions about the law in those cases, attempting to infer the answers from the Mishna's examples. The Gemara further examines each ruling of precedence in the Mishna, suggesting that the order could, in fact, be reversed. In every instance, the Gemara explains why the Mishna chose its particular order and not the alternative.

It’s Deactivation Week!! On December 10th in Australia (which is really December 9 in the US), the first-ever social media ban will take effect. The major platforms are required by law to deactivate the accounts of children and teens under 16. Kelly reviews the details of the new law, the pushback from Big Tech, advocacy groups, parents, and teens, and why all of this is so important. While we watch and see how this works in Australia, here are some takeaways: Do not wait for the government to save your kids from social media. Social Media is optional for you, too, parents! The burden is on Big Tech, but the opportunity is still on you. Expect pushback, but persevere. Fill the void with real life. Brave Parenting Guides to Lemon8 and Yope (Where Australian kids are rumored to be heading.) Articles referenced: Is This the End of Kids on Social Media? Social Media Ban: Everything You Need to Know Before Deactivation Day Australia says world will follow social media ban Australia is banning social media for teens – others could follow How Australian Teens Plan to Get Around the Social Media Ban Meta Starts Kicking Australian Children Off Instagram and Facebook TikTok to Comply with Australia’s ‘Upsetting’ Social Media Ban YouTube Says it Will Comply With Australian Social Media Ban Australia wants to end the era of kids on social media with international ban hailed as “first domino” in global movement Scripture referenced: 2 Corinthians 11:14 Romans 12 Psalm 82:3-4 Jeremiah 17:9 Ephesians 2:1-3 Romans 1:18-32 Ephesians 6:12 Deuteronomy 6:6-7 ORDER YOUR BRAVE PARENTING MERCH SOON FOR CHRISTMAS DELIVERY Book a Speaking Event!! Buy the NEWLY UPDATED book: Managing Media Creating Character (2024 Revised & Updated) Get Kelly’s new Study Guide & Workbook, with video teachings for small groups. Check out our brand new Brave Parenting Merch Sign up for the Brave Bullet Points newsletter! This helps us communicate what’s happening without social media – a win for everyone!

This week, Bob walks through two related debates: Hoppe's criticism of Argentina's President Milei for not immediately closing Argentina's central bank, and the follow-up exchange between Guido Hülsmann and Philipp Bagus on Mises.org over dollarization and the peso. Along the way, he reviews Mises's distinctions among commodity, credit, and fiat money, the concepts of money substitutes and fiduciary media, and the interesting structure of Argentina's short-term central bank debtGuido Hülsmann and Philipp Bagus' Debate on Mises.org: Mises.org/HAP529aThe Human Action Podcast Episode with Nicolás Cachanosky: Mises.org/HAP529bBob's Study Guide to The Theory of Money and Credit: Mises.org/HAP529cThe Mises Institute is giving away 100,000 copies of Hayek for the 21st Century. Get your free copy at Mises.org/HAPodFree

Study Guide In the dispute among the five Tannaim regarding which items remain on the altar even if they have become invalid, Reish Lakish points out cases where there is a practical halakhic difference between the various opinions. According to the Gemara, his novelty lies in one specific case, where he wanted to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon still maintains his position in a case of libations that accompany the sacrifice but were not brought on the same day the sacrifice was offered. There is also a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding which types of disqualifications fall under the rule of "if they have ascended [the altar], they do not descend." The Gemara cites a braita that explains the textual basis for their respective opinions.

Study Guide In the dispute among the five Tannaim regarding which items remain on the altar even if they have become invalid, Reish Lakish points out cases where there is a practical halakhic difference between the various opinions. According to the Gemara, his novelty lies in one specific case, where he wanted to emphasize that Rabbi Shimon still maintains his position in a case of libations that accompany the sacrifice but were not brought on the same day the sacrifice was offered. There is also a dispute between Rabbi Shimon and Rabbi Yehuda regarding which types of disqualifications fall under the rule of "if they have ascended [the altar], they do not descend." The Gemara cites a braita that explains the textual basis for their respective opinions.

Study Guide There are varying opinions on several issues relating to blood that is meant to be brought on the outer altar but becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. From what verse is this derived? Does it apply to all sacrifices, or only to sin offerings? And does it apply only if one actually sprinkled the blood there, and not merely by walking inside with the blood? If the blood of one sin offering is placed in two cups, and one is brought outside or one is brought into the Sanctuary, is the other cup (that remains in the Azara) disqualified? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and the Rabbis disagree. Rabbi Yosi presents logical arguments to counter the Rabbis' position, while the Rabbis respond with verses from the Torah. It is also forbidden to bring the blood of sin offerings into the Kodesh HaKodashim, as this too is derived from a verse in the Torah. Blood from a sin offering is disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. But what about sin-offering blood that was designated to be presented in the Sanctuary and was instead brought into the Kodesh HaKodashim, is it similarly disqualified? And if it is, what about blood that was supposed to go into the Kodesh HaKodashim but was taken out and then brought back in?    

Study Guide Blood from a sin offering is disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. But what about sin offering blood that was designated to be presented in the Sanctuary and was instead brought into the Kodesh HaKodashim - is it similarly disqualified? And if it is, what about blood that was supposed to go into the Kodesh HaKodashim but was taken out and then brought back in? Or taken out and brought to the altar and then back to the parochet?   Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree regarding sacrifices whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary. Is the offering disqualified merely by the act of bringing the blood inside, or only if the blood is actually presented on the altar? The Gemara cites sources for each opinion and explains the underlying basis of their debate. Rabbi Yehuda rules that blood brought into the Sanctuary accidentally is exempt from disqualification. But what would he say if the blood was brought in intentionally, would it be disqualified only if it was presented? Rabbi Yirmia introduces a braita to address this question. Items that are disqualified are not meant to be placed on the altar. Yet if they are placed there, the altar sanctifies them and they must remain. However, there is a tannaitic dispute regarding which types of items are not removed once placed on the altar. Five different opinions are presented, and the Gemara explores the reasoning behind each of these views and why they disagree.

Study Guide There are varying opinions on several issues relating to blood that is meant to be brought on the outer altar but becomes disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. From what verse is this derived? Does it apply to all sacrifices, or only to sin offerings? And does it apply only if one actually sprinkled the blood there, and not merely by walking inside with the blood? If the blood of one sin offering is placed in two cups, and one is brought outside or one is brought into the Sanctuary, is the other cup (that remains in the Azara) disqualified? Rabbi Yosi HaGelili and the Rabbis disagree. Rabbi Yosi presents logical arguments to counter the Rabbis' position, while the Rabbis respond with verses from the Torah. It is also forbidden to bring the blood of sin offerings into the Kodesh HaKodashim, as this too is derived from a verse in the Torah. Blood from a sin offering is disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. But what about sin-offering blood that was designated to be presented in the Sanctuary and was instead brought into the Kodesh HaKodashim, is it similarly disqualified? And if it is, what about blood that was supposed to go into the Kodesh HaKodashim but was taken out and then brought back in?    

Study Guide Blood from a sin offering is disqualified if it is brought into the Sanctuary. But what about sin offering blood that was designated to be presented in the Sanctuary and was instead brought into the Kodesh HaKodashim - is it similarly disqualified? And if it is, what about blood that was supposed to go into the Kodesh HaKodashim but was taken out and then brought back in? Or taken out and brought to the altar and then back to the parochet?   Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon disagree regarding sacrifices whose blood is brought into the Sanctuary. Is the offering disqualified merely by the act of bringing the blood inside, or only if the blood is actually presented on the altar? The Gemara cites sources for each opinion and explains the underlying basis of their debate. Rabbi Yehuda rules that blood brought into the Sanctuary accidentally is exempt from disqualification. But what would he say if the blood was brought in intentionally, would it be disqualified only if it was presented? Rabbi Yirmia introduces a braita to address this question. Items that are disqualified are not meant to be placed on the altar. Yet if they are placed there, the altar sanctifies them and they must remain. However, there is a tannaitic dispute regarding which types of items are not removed once placed on the altar. Five different opinions are presented, and the Gemara explores the reasoning behind each of these views and why they disagree.

Study Guide When different bloods are mixed together, how are they brought on the altar? If both sacrifices require the same number of placements, that number is performed, with the assumption that the blood placed on the altar represents a combination of both offerings. However, if the mixture includes blood from a sacrifice requiring one placement and another requiring four, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on the proper procedure. Why does the Mishna introduce the case of blood from blemished animals mixed with valid blood, when it has already discussed a similar case regarding limbs of blemished animals mixed with valid limbs? The Gemara then cites a Mishna in Parah 9:1, which deals with waters of the red heifer that became mixed with ordinary water. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis dispute whether such water can be used, and if so, in what manner. Three possible explanations are offered to clarify Rabbi Eliezer's position. The Gemara proceeds to challenge these explanations: first, a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's interpretation, which remains unresolved. Then, five difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi's explanation, drawn from various braitot and our Mishna. Each of these is resolved through the method of ukimta, limiting the ruling to specific circumstances. Finally, one additional difficulty is raised later in the sugya, which remains unresolved.

Today, we talk about the connection between sleep (or lack thereof), screens, and spiritual apathy. Kelly walks through five ways screens contribute to sleep deprivation and how children and teens who are sleep deprived are more likely to experience poor mental health, among other negative outcomes. More important for Christian parents is the spiritual apathy that arises in kids who are sleep-deprived. In this episode, you will learn how sleep is both biblical and necessary for children’s and teens’ spiritual health. Armed with this knowledge, you will be encouraged and equipped to make changes to your family structure to reprioritize sleep, remove screens from the bedroom, and reinforce the biblical importance of getting enough rest. SHOP our Wristbands and Other Merch! Articles referenced: Teens & Sleep: The Hidden Cost of Sleep Deprivation How to help your child get enough healthy brain-boosting sleep Teens with insomnia who lack sleep may be at risk for high blood pressure The Critical Connection between Teens' Sleep and Mental Health Contemporary Screen Time Modalities among Children 9–10 years old and Binge-Eating Disorder at One-Year Follow-Up: A Prospective Cohort Study Sleep in High School Students Maybe the teen mental health crisis is actually a sleep crisis Scripture referenced: Psalm 121:3-4 Genesis 2:2-3 Mathew 11:29 Psalm 62:1 Psalm 23:2-3 Psalm 116:7 Psalm 46:10 Psalm 3:5 Psalm 4:8 Psalm 127:2 1 Peter 1:13, 4:7, 5:8 2 Samuel 11:2-3 Luke 22:45-46, 50, 52 Book a Speaking Event!! Buy the NEWLY UPDATED book: Managing Media Creating Character (2024 Revised & Updated) Get Kelly’s new Study Guide & Workbook, with video teachings for small groups. Check out our brand new Brave Parenting Merch Sign up for the Brave Bullet Points newsletter! This helps us communicate what’s happening without social media – a win for everyone!

Study Guide When different bloods are mixed together, how are they brought on the altar? If both sacrifices require the same number of placements, that number is performed, with the assumption that the blood placed on the altar represents a combination of both offerings. However, if the mixture includes blood from a sacrifice requiring one placement and another requiring four, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua disagree on the proper procedure. Why does the Mishna introduce the case of blood from blemished animals mixed with valid blood, when it has already discussed a similar case regarding limbs of blemished animals mixed with valid limbs? The Gemara then cites a Mishna in Parah 9:1, which deals with waters of the red heifer that became mixed with ordinary water. Rabbi Eliezer and the rabbis dispute whether such water can be used, and if so, in what manner. Three possible explanations are offered to clarify Rabbi Eliezer's position. The Gemara proceeds to challenge these explanations: first, a difficulty is raised against Reish Lakish's interpretation, which remains unresolved. Then, five difficulties are posed against Rav Ashi's explanation, drawn from various braitot and our Mishna. Each of these is resolved through the method of ukimta, limiting the ruling to specific circumstances. Finally, one additional difficulty is raised later in the sugya, which remains unresolved.

professorjrod@gmail.comLearn essential IT skills development for passing your CompTIA exams in mobile tech support. A detailed guide to the mobile era for tech exam prep.Phones aren't just gadgets anymore—they're identity, payments, photos, and the keys to work. We take you on a clear, practical tour of the mobile landscape that A+ technicians need to master, from touch layers and camera flex cables to SoCs, batteries, and the accessories that turn a slab of glass into a full workstation. Along the way, we connect the dots between hardware and human stakes: why a loose port mimics a dead battery, how a single certificate blocks corporate Wi‑Fi, and what swollen cells tell you about urgency and safety.We walk through laptop displays and storage—LCD vs OLED, CCFL vs LED backlights, SATA vs NVMe—and explain how soldered RAM and SSDs affect upgrade paths and purchasing advice. Then we map the wireless terrain: Wi‑Fi 5, Wi‑Fi 6, and Wi‑Fi 7 tradeoffs; Bluetooth profiles like A2DP and HID; NFC's tiny range with outsized impact; and mobile broadband with APN, hotspot, and plan pitfalls. On the software side, we compare iOS and Android security models, sandboxing, permissions, and backup strategies; we also show how iCloud, Google, and Exchange sync turn a reset from disaster into a routine fix.Security gets the spotlight: strong lock combos, malware symptoms that masquerade as battery or data issues, malicious QR codes, and why remote wipe is the right call for lost corporate devices. We share a tested troubleshooting playbook—start with simple checks like rotation lock, clean charging ports before replacing batteries, reseat camera cables before swapping modules, and confirm enterprise certs before blaming antennas. Finally, we double down on ethics and workflow: back up first, label everything, respect privacy, and return devices better than they arrived.If you care about faster fixes, safer data, and smarter mobile support, you'll find ready-to-use steps and exam-ready insights here. Subscribe, share with a friend who's studying for A+, and leave a review telling us the toughest mobile issue you want solved next.Psst! The Folium Diary has something it wants to tell you - please come a little closer...YOU can change the world - you do it every day. Let's change it for the better, together.Listen on: Apple Podcasts SpotifySupport the showArt By Sarah/DesmondMusic by Joakim KarudLittle chacha ProductionsJuan Rodriguez can be reached atTikTok @ProfessorJrodProfessorJRod@gmail.com@Prof_JRodInstagram ProfessorJRod

Study Guide | Download Audio File Today, Pastor Nick walks us into the often overlooked spiritual discipline of lament. Through the Psalms and the story of Lazarus, he shows how Jesus grieves with us, how lament becomes a place of growth, and how each of us can choose to turn toward God in seasons of […]

Study Guide | Download Audio File Today, Pastor Nick walks us into the often overlooked spiritual discipline of lament. Through the Psalms and the story of Lazarus, he shows how Jesus grieves with us, how lament becomes a place of growth, and how each of us can choose to turn toward God in seasons of […]

In this uplifting Abounding Love episode, I begin a series in the Gospel of Luke on the Kingdom of God, which is future, but it's also present in us right now. Jesus, when asked about the coming Kingdom, responded, "For indeed, the kingdom of God is within you" (Luke 17:21b, NKJV). The Kingdom of God is within us through the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, which we received once we were born again. As such, we need to look at the world with a different perspective. Being children of God, with the Holy Spirit within us, we have been lifted up beyond the cares of this world. Paul prays, ". . . that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints" (Ephesians 1:18b, NKJV). In the remainder of chapter 1, Paul reminds us of the authority we inherit through Christ's resurrection. In Ephesians, chapter 2, Paul describes our prior sinful life, but now due to God's great love, ". . . even when we were dead in trespasses, made us alive together in Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up together, and made us sit together in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus" (Ephesians 2:5-6, NKJV). We're in the Kingdom of God right now in the person of Jesus Christ. Paul states, "He [God the Father] has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the Kingdom of the Son of His love" (Colossians 1:13, NKJV). Being in the Kingdom, we need to act like it now! This podcast uses the Gospel of Luke to show how God made it possible for us to be in His everlasting Kingdom now [Luke 1:33], which begins with the birth of Jesus. Join me as we study Ephesians 1:15-23; 2:1-10; Colossians 1:12-23; Romans 8:1; 11-17; Hebrews 11:6; and excerpts from Luke, chapters 1 through 3, for an exciting time of exhortation from God's Word. Selah! [For more: Copy and Paste or Enter into ChatGPT.com, "Create a Study Guide of episode #065 Creative Faith In Luke #1 from Abounding Love Ministries" ].     www.aboundinglove.org

Before you start Black Friday and Cyber Monday shopping for the latest and greatest tech gadgets, toys, and tools, it is important to have a biblical approach to gift-giving. In this episode, you’ll learn: The biblical nature of gift-giving and gift-receiving The call for Christians to give sacrificially What Scripture considers “good” gifts The top tech gifts promoted as “what teens want” this year, along with the top tech you should reject buying Why you shouldn’t give tech tools as a gift (for Christmas or Birthdays) The importance of communicating a “no tech toys preference” with extended family As a bonus, there is a deeper dive into AI toys that are saturating the toy market.  One AI-powered bear has been shown to provide sexual fetish information for kids! There is one great takeaway: Do not allow your children to come into contact with any AI-powered toy, robot, or chatbot. Check out BRAVE PARENTING MERCH!! Our wristbands make for great stocking stuffers! Articles referenced: China's New AI Toys Are Headed For American Shelves AI-Powered Stuffed Animal Pulled From Market After Disturbing Interactions With Children The ChatGPT-powered teddy bear is officially on ice Do Not, Under Any Circumstance, Buy Your Kid an AI Toy for Christmas Teens Need More Friction – Not the iPhone 17 BP Podcast #142: AI Robots for kids Brave Parenting Guide to AI Robots for Kids Media & Tech for Kids under 12 (for gift ideas) Scripture referenced: John 3:16 John 15:13 James 1:17 Luke 6:38 Matthew 7:9-11 Matthew 6:19-21 Book a Speaking Event!! Buy the NEWLY UPDATED book: Managing Media Creating Character (2024 Revised & Updated) Get Kelly’s new Study Guide & Workbook, with video teachings for small groups. Check out our brand new Brave Parenting Merch Sign up for the Brave Bullet Points newsletter! This helps us communicate what’s happening without social media – a win for everyone!

Study Guide After comparing the Mishna in Zevachim with a parallel Mishna in Temurah, the Gemara explains that the Mishna in Zevachim was included to emphasize that even an item prohibited outside the Temple — since it is forbidden for benefit altogether — will not be nullified and must be left to die. This, however, raises a difficulty, as such a principle could seemingly be derived from a Mishna in Avodah Zarah. The resolution is that the Mishna in Avodah Zarah does not deal with items designated for the altar. Therefore, if only that Mishna existed, one might assume that for sacrificial purposes, the laws of nullification would apply, so as not to destroy offerings. Conversely, if only the Mishna in Zevachim were taught, one might think the stringency applies specifically because these items are inherently despicable and unfit for the altar, whereas in non-Temple contexts, nullification might still be valid. According to Torah law, when permitted and forbidden items are intermingled, the forbidden items are nullified if the permitted ones form the majority. Yet there are exceptions to this rule. Why, then, is an animal not nullified in the majority here? The Gemara first suggests that animals fall into the category of items sold individually, which are not nullified according to Rabbi Meir. This explanation aligns with Reish Lakish's reading of Rabbi Meir's position in Mishna Orlah 3:6–7, which includes items usually sold individually but occasionally sold otherwise. However, it does not fit Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation of Rabbi Meir, which applies only to items sold exclusively as individuals — a category that does not include animals, since they are sometimes sold in flocks.  

Study Guide After comparing the Mishna in Zevachim with a parallel Mishna in Temurah, the Gemara explains that the Mishna in Zevachim was included to emphasize that even an item prohibited outside the Temple — since it is forbidden for benefit altogether — will not be nullified and must be left to die. This, however, raises a difficulty, as such a principle could seemingly be derived from a Mishna in Avodah Zarah. The resolution is that the Mishna in Avodah Zarah does not deal with items designated for the altar. Therefore, if only that Mishna existed, one might assume that for sacrificial purposes, the laws of nullification would apply, so as not to destroy offerings. Conversely, if only the Mishna in Zevachim were taught, one might think the stringency applies specifically because these items are inherently despicable and unfit for the altar, whereas in non-Temple contexts, nullification might still be valid. According to Torah law, when permitted and forbidden items are intermingled, the forbidden items are nullified if the permitted ones form the majority. Yet there are exceptions to this rule. Why, then, is an animal not nullified in the majority here? The Gemara first suggests that animals fall into the category of items sold individually, which are not nullified according to Rabbi Meir. This explanation aligns with Reish Lakish's reading of Rabbi Meir's position in Mishna Orlah 3:6–7, which includes items usually sold individually but occasionally sold otherwise. However, it does not fit Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation of Rabbi Meir, which applies only to items sold exclusively as individuals — a category that does not include animals, since they are sometimes sold in flocks.  

Study Guide How does Rabbi Yehuda counter the difficulties raised by Rav Shizbi? First, the Gemara shows that he derives the rulings of Rav Shizbi (that both the verses on a dead bird and the cheilev of an animal only apply to kosher birds/animals differently. Then, they bring three suggestions on how to explain the meaning of the word treifa in the verse regarding the cheilev. The first two suggestions are rejected.  How does Rabbi Meir explain the three different verses - two for the impurity of a dead bird and the one for cheilev? A braita is brought that derives some of the halakhot previously mentioned from the verses, that the cheilev ruling only applies to kosher animals and not to undomesticated animals.  Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether Rabbi Meir would hold that melika removes a bird from having impurity of a carcass in birds with blemishes or even birds not generally offered on the altar. This leads to Rabbi Yirmia asking if the same would be true if, instead of breaking the neck of a calf in the egla arufa ceremony, they broke the back of a goat?   

We've all felt broken. Maybe you were broken by something you've done. Or maybe it was by something that was done to you. Thankfully, grace doesn't discard the broken pieces. It restores them. You can be free from shame and the burden of bitterness, and the cracks where you've been shattered can be filled with mercy. What was broken can become beautiful again through Forgiveness. Study Guide: https://mailchi.mp/mountaintopchurch/whatwasdonetome-112325Learn more about Mountaintop Church at https://mountaintopchurch.com

Study Guide | Download Audio File Pastor Eric finishes The R.I.C.H. Life series with a message on the hurdles that keep us from true financial freedom. From comparison and debt to disorganization and distraction, this teaching offers practical wisdom and biblical clarity to help you build a healthier relationship with money. Discover how trusting God, […]

Study Guide How does Rabbi Yehuda counter the difficulties raised by Rav Shizbi? First, the Gemara shows that he derives the rulings of Rav Shizbi (that both the verses on a dead bird and the cheilev of an animal only apply to kosher birds/animals differently. Then, they bring three suggestions on how to explain the meaning of the word treifa in the verse regarding the cheilev. The first two suggestions are rejected.  How does Rabbi Meir explain the three different verses - two for the impurity of a dead bird and the one for cheilev? A braita is brought that derives some of the halakhot previously mentioned from the verses, that the cheilev ruling only applies to kosher animals and not to undomesticated animals.  Rabbi Yochanan and Rabbi Elazar disagree about whether Rabbi Meir would hold that melika removes a bird from having impurity of a carcass in birds with blemishes or even birds not generally offered on the altar. This leads to Rabbi Yirmia asking if the same would be true if, instead of breaking the neck of a calf in the egla arufa ceremony, they broke the back of a goat?   

Study Guide | Download Audio File Pastor Eric finishes The R.I.C.H. Life series with a message on the hurdles that keep us from true financial freedom. From comparison and debt to disorganization and distraction, this teaching offers practical wisdom and biblical clarity to help you build a healthier relationship with money. Discover how trusting God, […]

Snapchat released a digital safety course helping teens navigate the bullying, illicit drug activity, nude and intimate images, and sextortion found on their platform. Some may consider this altruistic, but it reveals a deeper problem with Snapchat’s very design. In this episode, Kelly walks through five points of contention with Snapchat’s design and the so-called “safety” options offered. Snapchat’s recent design upgrades further reveal that this is not an app for basic communication with friends. It’s an app that will do anything to make a profit – even if that means addicting them or exposing them to harmful content. The difference between digital safety courses and biblical discipleship is wisdom. This episode provides parents with the facts about Snapchat’s current operations – an apologetic for prohibiting its use, to be used in discipling children to navigate a world that demands they use social media to connect and communicate Articles referenced: The Keys to Snapchat Safety Snapchat’s CEO Outlines Difficult Path Forward for the App Snapchat Adds Infinite Retention and Group Streaks Metricool 2025 Study Unveils 70% Surge in Short-Form Video Snap and Perplexity Partner to Bring Conversational AI Search to Snapchat Snapchat rolls out ‘Topic Chats' for public conversations Snapchat and Instagram are starting to chase the same growth strategy Scripture referenced: Proverbs 25:28 1 Peter 5:8 John 14:27 Hebrews 12:3 Isaiah 30:21 Galatians 6:6-8 Documentary referenced: Can’t Look Away Book a Speaking Event!! Buy the NEWLY UPDATED book: Managing Media Creating Character (2024 Revised & Updated) Get Kelly’s new Study Guide & Workbook, with video teachings for small groups. Check out our brand new Brave Parenting Merch Sign up for the Brave Bullet Points newsletter! This helps us communicate what’s happening without social media – a win for everyone!

In this episode of The Real Life English with Gabby, we're exploring the world of luck, good fortune, and all the expressions native speakers use to talk about those magical moments when everything seems to go right in your life. You'll learn 15 essential idioms, phrasal verbs, and slang expressions that real Americans use every day. You'll learn vocabulary like: a stroke of luck, pan out, the stars align and more! Through clear explanations, real-life examples, and an easy-to-follow story, you'll not only understand these expressions, you'll actually remember and use them confidently in your conversations.If you've ever felt confused by how native speakers talk about luck, chance, opportunities, or things working out, this episode is for you. We'll break everything down in a natural, friendly way and then guide you through how to practice the vocabulary so that it sticks in your brain. Whether you want to improve your speaking, sound more fluent, or understand English the way it's really spoken, this episode gives you the tools you need. Also, don't forget to download the free Study Guide that will help you practice what you learn in this episode! It includes:Definitions and example sentencesThe full transcriptPractice exercises that will challenge youand more!Click >> HERE > CLICK HERE

Study Guide

Study Guide

Study Guide

Study Guide

Study Guide The Mishna, as in Chapter 2 (Zevachim 29b), outlines various scenarios in which a thought can, or cannot, render a sacrifice pigul, thereby making consumption of the meat punishable/not punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with one of the rulings and maintains that if melika (the ritual slaughter of a bird) was performed with the intent to offer the blood beyond its designated time, and the blood was then squeezed with the intent to burn the flesh outside the Azara (Temple courtyard), the offering would be considered pigul. This is because, although the sacrifice was already disqualified for other reasons, the disqualification due to improper intent regarding time occurred first. A braita examines the verses concerning the bird burnt offering and derives several halakhot specific to this sacrifice: One who volunteers to bring this type of offering may bring only one bird. Melika must be performed by a kohen. Melika is not performed with a knife. Melika is performed at the top of the altar. Melika is done on the back of the bird's neck. The bird's head must be severed. All the blood must be squeezed out - none may remain. The blood is squeezed onto the upper part of the altar wall. There is a debate whether melika and the squeezing of the blood are performed on the sovev (the ledge surrounding the altar) or at its top. Another braita presents differing opinions regarding which parts of the bird are cast onto the beit hadeshen (the ash heap) and how those parts are removed. The bird is split in half - this is done by hand, as derived from a verse in Judges concerning Shimshon. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna regarding a bird sin offering in which the kohen severs the head: is the offering thereby disqualified or not? Three interpretations are offered to explain the basis of their disagreement.  

Study Guide The Mishna, as in Chapter 2 (Zevachim 29b), outlines various scenarios in which a thought can, or cannot, render a sacrifice pigul, thereby making consumption of the meat punishable/not punishable by karet. Rabbi Yehuda disagrees with one of the rulings and maintains that if melika (the ritual slaughter of a bird) was performed with the intent to offer the blood beyond its designated time, and the blood was then squeezed with the intent to burn the flesh outside the Azara (Temple courtyard), the offering would be considered pigul. This is because, although the sacrifice was already disqualified for other reasons, the disqualification due to improper intent regarding time occurred first. A braita examines the verses concerning the bird burnt offering and derives several halakhot specific to this sacrifice: One who volunteers to bring this type of offering may bring only one bird. Melika must be performed by a kohen. Melika is not performed with a knife. Melika is performed at the top of the altar. Melika is done on the back of the bird's neck. The bird's head must be severed. All the blood must be squeezed out - none may remain. The blood is squeezed onto the upper part of the altar wall. There is a debate whether melika and the squeezing of the blood are performed on the sovev (the ledge surrounding the altar) or at its top. Another braita presents differing opinions regarding which parts of the bird are cast onto the beit hadeshen (the ash heap) and how those parts are removed. The bird is split in half - this is done by hand, as derived from a verse in Judges concerning Shimshon. Rabbi Elazar ben Rabbi Shimon disagrees with the tanna of our Mishna regarding a bird sin offering in which the kohen severs the head: is the offering thereby disqualified or not? Three interpretations are offered to explain the basis of their disagreement.  

Study Guide | Download Audio File This week, Pastor Eric continues The R.I.C.H. Life series with a message called Controlled Spending. Discover how biblical wisdom can bring peace, freedom, and purpose to your finances. Learn practical ways to budget wisely, resist greed, and enjoy the life God wants for you. It's a reminder that when […]

Study Guide | Download Audio File This week, Pastor Eric continues The R.I.C.H. Life series with a message called Controlled Spending. Discover how biblical wisdom can bring peace, freedom, and purpose to your finances. Learn practical ways to budget wisely, resist greed, and enjoy the life God wants for you. It's a reminder that when […]

Welcome to Episode #72 of The Real Life English with Gabby Podcast. In this episode inspired by Veteran's Day, Gabby teaches 18 military phrasal verbs, slang words and idioms that Americans use at work and in their everyday lives. In this episode, you'll learn how to use military language with confidence!Also, don't forget that this episode includes a free Study Guide that will help you practice what you learn in this episode! It includes:Definitions and example sentencesThe full transcriptPractice exercises that will challenge youand more!Click >> HERE > CLICK HERE

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Diagrams Study Guide Rav Shravia raises a second difficulty against Rabbi Zeira's proof for Rabbi Yochanan's statement that Rabbi Yosi held the altar was completely in the north from the Mishna in Tamid 29a. He suggests that perhaps it was not Rabbi Yosi's opinion, but rather Rabbi Yosi the Galilean, who held that the altar was in the north. He cites a different braita relating to the placement of the basin (kiyur) and explains why that proves Rabbi Yosi the Galilean must have held that the altar was completely in the north. Rav and Rabbi Yochanan debate the status of sanctified animals that were designated, and then the altar becomes broken. A verse is brought as the source for Rav's position. Two difficulties are raised against Rav's view—one from a braita and one from a statement Rav himself made—and both are resolved. In resolving the second difficulty, the Gemara mentions a position of Rabbi Yehuda. It then explores this opinion in the context of a debate between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosi regarding the size and height of the altar in the time of Moshe.

Straight from the parking lot of victory!

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

Study Guide The bloods of the firstborn, maaser, and Pesach are only sprinkled once on the altar. This is derived from the fact that the word "saviv"-"around" the altar - appears in the context of the burnt, sin, and guilt offerings. One cannot learn from those cases to others, as details that appear two or three times cannot be used to establish a paradigm for a different case. Rabbi Tarfon taught that the firstborn can be eaten for two days and one night, as it is similar to the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagelili, on his first day in the Beit Midrash in Yavne, raised several difficulties with this comparison and likened it to a guilt and sin offering, which are eaten only for a day and night. When Rabbi Tarfon could no longer respond to the questioning, he left, and Rabbi Akiva took his place and said that in Vayikra 18:18, where the firstborn is compared to the thigh and breast given to the kohen, this is a juxtaposition between the firstborn and the peace offering. Rabbi Yosi Hagellil responded that also the thigh and breast are given to the kohen in a thanksgiving offering which is eaten only for a day and night. Therefore, perhaps the comparison should be made to the thanksgiving offering instead. Rabbi Akiva was convinced by Rabbi Yosi that the comparison should be to the thanksgiving offering, but he found other words in the verse from which to derive an additional day. When Rabbi Yishmael heard about this, he engaged in a lengthy debate with Rabbi Akiva regarding his change of position—that the comparison is to the thanksgiving offering. Rabbi Yishmael argued that the law of the thigh and breast in the thanksgiving offering is derived by juxtaposition (heikesh), and the law about the firstborn is derived from the thigh and breast by juxtaposition, and one cannot derive a law from a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition. However, the Gemara explains that this juxtaposition is not typical: while the law of the thigh and breast is derived by juxtaposition, the time limitation is stated directly. The debate between Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yishmael centers on whether a law derived partially by juxtaposition and partially stated explicitly can serve as the basis for a juxtaposition to another law. The Gemara raises two difficulties with Rabbi Yishmael's position—one regarding the number of times the kohen gadol must sprinkle the blood of the bull and goat in the Sanctuary (Heichal) on Yom Kippur, and one regarding the amount of flour required for the loaves of matza that accompany the thanksgiving offering. Each of these laws is derived by means of a juxtaposition on a juxtaposition, along with something explicitly stated or derived by a gezeira shava. Each difficulty is resolved. The Mishna stated that the Pesach may be eaten only until midnight. This is the opinion of Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, but Rabbi Akiva permits it until dawn. Each derives their opinion from a different verse.

Study Guide Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the marriage today of their son Oren Shapiro to Fay Gamliel of Toronto. "Mazal tov and may they build a Bayit Ne'eman b'Yisrael, and a bayit filled with love and peace!" Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff in loving memory of the 11 precious souls killed on the 18 of Cheshvan at Dor Hadash, New Light and Tree of Life in Pittsburgh. Joyce Fienberg, Dr Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, and Irving Younger. And in honor of the Daf Yomi Pittsburgh group under the leadership of Rabbi Amy Bardack and Eric Lidji. What is the size of the Temple courtyard, the Azara? These boundaries are important for three laws that are specifically done in the azara only - kohanim eat kodshai kodashim, slaughtering kodshim kalim takes place there, and one is punished by karet for entering while impure. Rav Nachman's father specified the boundaries. There was an assumption that he was trying to exclude a particular space by demarcating the exact size. They explain that he must have been excluding the chambers that open into the Azara but are partially outside the Azara boundaries. A difficulty is raised from a Mishna that designates them as sanctified. But it is resolved by explaining that the Mishna was referring to a rabbinic definition, but by Torah law, they are not considered the Azara. Two other sources seem to contradict this explanation, but are resolved.   Rav Avudimi explained the source that the blood is disqualified if not brought on the altar before sunset of the day of the slaughtering. Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya disagree about the status of the meat of a peace offering on the night after the second day, both for laws of pigul and notar. Comparisons are made between the meat of the sacrifices that can be eaten for one day and those that can be eaten for two days – explaining the source of the differences between the two regarding the night of the second day. A firstborn, maaser and Pesach are kodshai kalim and have similar laws. However, certain issues surrounding eating them are different – who can eat them, how the meat is prepared, and for how long they can be eaten.   

Study Guide | Download Audio File

Study Guide Today's daf is sponsored by Judy and Jerel Shapiro for the marriage today of their son Oren Shapiro to Fay Gamliel of Toronto. "Mazal tov and may they build a Bayit Ne'eman b'Yisrael, and a bayit filled with love and peace!" Today's daf is sponsored by Beth Kissileff in loving memory of the 11 precious souls killed on the 18 of Cheshvan at Dor Hadash, New Light and Tree of Life in Pittsburgh. Joyce Fienberg, Dr Richard Gottfried, Rose Mallinger, Dr. Jerry Rabinowitz, Cecil Rosenthal, David Rosenthal, Bernice Simon, Sylvan Simon, Daniel Stein, Melvin Wax, and Irving Younger. And in honor of the Daf Yomi Pittsburgh group under the leadership of Rabbi Amy Bardack and Eric Lidji. What is the size of the Temple courtyard, the Azara? These boundaries are important for three laws that are specifically done in the azara only - kohanim eat kodshai kodashim, slaughtering kodshim kalim takes place there, and one is punished by karet for entering while impure. Rav Nachman's father specified the boundaries. There was an assumption that he was trying to exclude a particular space by demarcating the exact size. They explain that he must have been excluding the chambers that open into the Azara but are partially outside the Azara boundaries. A difficulty is raised from a Mishna that designates them as sanctified. But it is resolved by explaining that the Mishna was referring to a rabbinic definition, but by Torah law, they are not considered the Azara. Two other sources seem to contradict this explanation, but are resolved.   Rav Avudimi explained the source that the blood is disqualified if not brought on the altar before sunset of the day of the slaughtering. Rabbi Yochanan and Chizkiya disagree about the status of the meat of a peace offering on the night after the second day, both for laws of pigul and notar. Comparisons are made between the meat of the sacrifices that can be eaten for one day and those that can be eaten for two days – explaining the source of the differences between the two regarding the night of the second day. A firstborn, maaser and Pesach are kodshai kalim and have similar laws. However, certain issues surrounding eating them are different – who can eat them, how the meat is prepared, and for how long they can be eaten.   

Study Guide | Download Audio File

Study Guide After suggesting that one can learn from Rabbi Meir's opinion about melika of a bird that is a treifa, that one can learn a binyan av from a kal va'chomer in kodashim, sacrificial items, the Gemara rejects this explanation because it is derived from chulin, not kodashim. Can one derive a law through a binyan av and then use another method of hermeneutics to derive something else? The Gemara only suggests an answer for a binyan av on a binyan av, but that answer is rejected since the method of derivation in the braita does not make sense. It must be derived from a verse in the Torah, Vayikra 2:6, and the braita is just being used as an asmachta. The remainder of the blood of the inner offerings is poured on the base of the altar on the western side. This is derived from Vayikra 4:7 where it states, "opposite the entrance to Ohel Moed," which refers to the exit of the sanctuary, which is by the western side of the altar. In Vayikra chapter 4, the phrase "pour on the base of the altar" is mentioned for three different sacrifices. Each one teaches a different law relating either to the base of the altar or to the pouring of the remainder. The Gemara explains why these verses were available to be extrapolated and were not necessary for their straightforward meaning.

Study Guide The Gemara explores various hermeneutical methods used to derive halakhic laws - juxtaposition (hekesh), gezeira shava (verbal analogy), kal va'chomer (a fortiori reasoning), and binyan av (paradigm from precedent). It raises the question: can a law derived through one method serve as the basis for further derivation, either by the same method or a different one? They systematically examine each possible permutation, presenting logical arguments and textual proofs to evaluate the validity and limitations of such compound derivations. Importantly, this entire discussion is confined to laws pertaining to sacrificial items (kodashim) alone.

An Arm-Twisting Confession. In this episode, we read Martin Luther's Smalcald Articles on the gospel, baptism, and the Lord's Supper. Why did he have to have "his arm twisted" to write them? What is he trying to teach the churches about the gospel? How does the gospel circumscribe and define the Church, worship, and Christian life? Why does something written in the 1530s matter today? We look to answer all these questions and more on this episode of the Banned Books podcast. SHOW NOTES:  The Book of Concord - Smalcald Articles https://thebookofconcord.org/smalcald-articles/part-iii/article-iv/ Smalcald Articles history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smalcald_Articles Edward Riojas https://edriojasartist.com Study Guide for Impossible Prize steve@1517.org  Simul Iustus et Peccator https://duckduckgo.com/?q=simul+justus+et+peccator+site%3A1517.org   The Smalcald Articles are a summary of Lutheran doctrine written by Martin Luther in 1537 for a meeting of the Schmalkaldic League, which aimed to unify Lutheran territories against Roman Catholic forces. Although they were not officially adopted at the meeting, they later became an important part of Lutheran confessional writings included in the Book of Concord.   More from 1517: Support 1517 Podcast Network: https://www.1517.org/donate-podcasts 1517 Podcasts: http://www.1517.org/podcasts 1517 on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@1517org 1517 Podcast Network on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/channel/1517-podcast-network/id6442751370 1517 Events Schedule: https://www.1517.org/events 1517 Academy - Free Theological Education: https://academy.1517.org/   What's New from 1517: Untamed Prayers: 365 Daily Devotions on Christ in the Book of Psalms by Chad Bird https://www.amazon.com/Untamed-Prayers-Devotions-Christ-Psalms/dp/1964419263 Remembering Your Baptism: A 40-Day Devotional by Kathryn Morales https://shop.1517.org/collections/new-releases/products/9781964419039-remembering-your-baptism  Sinner Saint by Luke Kjolhaug https://shop.1517.org/products/9781964419152-sinner-saint  The Impossible Prize: A Theology of Addiction by Donavan Riley https://shop.1517.org/products/9781962654708-the-impossible-prize    More from the hosts: Donovan Riley https://www.1517.org/contributors/donavon-riley  Christopher Gillespie https://www.1517.org/contributors/christopher-gillespie   CONTACT and FOLLOW: Email mailto:BannedBooks@1517.org  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/BannedBooksPod/  Twitter https://twitter.com/bannedbooks1517   SUBSCRIBE: YouTube https://www.youtube.com/@BannedBooks Rumble https://rumble.com/c/c-1223313  Odysee https://odysee.com/@bannedbooks:5 Apple Podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/banned-books/id1370993639  Spotify https://open.spotify.com/show/2ahA20sZMpBxg9vgiRVQba  Overcast https://overcast.fm/itunes1370993639/banned-books    MORE LINKS: Tin Foil Haloes https://t.me/bannedpastors Warrior Priest Gym & Podcast https://thewarriorpriestpodcast.wordpress.com   St John's Lutheran Church (Webster, MN) - FB Live Bible Study Group https://www.facebook.com/groups/356667039608511  Gillespie's Sermons and Catechesis http://youtube.com/stjohnrandomlake  Donavon's Substack https://donavonlriley.substack.com Gillespie's Nostr https://primal.net/p/nprofile1qqszfrg80ctjdr0wy5arrseu6h9g36kqx8fanr6a6zee0n8txa7xytc627hlq   Gillespie Coffee https://gillespie.coffee   Gillespie Media https://gillespie.media  

Study Guide Zeiri explains a very complicated braita referring to leniencies and stringencies regarding an impure person eating consecrated items and why each needed to be mentioned explicitly in the Torah. A braita is brought to explain the source of the law that one receives karet for eating part of a sacrifice that became pigul only if there is an action that permits it to be eaten or burned on the altar. The braita brings drashot on the verse in Vayikra 7:18 explaining how it applies to sacrifices other than peace offerings. It also specifies what items can and cannot become pigul. The braita says the oil of the leper can become pigul, but libations that are brought with a sacrifice cannot. This seems to contradict, as the oil follows Rabbi Meir's position and the libations follow that rabbi's position. Three possible solutions are suggested, but the first is rejected. From where do we derive that the meat of the bird sin offering is permitted for the kohen to eat? Rabbi Elazar cites a position of Rabbi Yosi that while there is pigul in the sin offerings whose blood is brought on the inner altar, it is only if both the action when the pigul thought occurs and the action that the thought is about occurs outside the sanctuary, in the Azara.  

Send us a text if you want to be on the Podcast & explain why!A 63-year-old pivoted careers and passed the NASM CPT by changing how he studied, not who he is. We open the playbook we used together: a clean path through the OPT model, phase-by-phase variables, and the corrective decisions that make both the test and client sessions click. If you've felt buried by jargon, this conversation pulls concepts into the light and connects them to simple choices you can make tomorrow.We start with stabilization and build to strength and power, linking tempos, rests, and intensities so you can see why each phase exists. Foam rolling shows up across the board, but stretching changes with the goal—static early, active-isolated through strength, dynamic in power. From there, we map common overactive muscles in the lower body to practical fixes: roll, stretch, then strengthen the underactive counterpart at a controlled tempo. You'll hear quick wins like how to handle heels lifting in a squat, what to do when shoulders elevate on a row, and why scaption and TRX rows keep showing up on smart Phase One programs.Clarity around planes of motion, muscle roles, and scapular force couples pays off fast. We break down how to spot the sagittal, frontal, or transverse answer in seconds, and how agonists, antagonists, synergists, and stabilizers guide exercise selection. We also hit vital signs that matter—hypertension thresholds, tachycardia as a referral trigger, and the wrist's radial pulse—as well as nutrition basics: carbohydrate ranges, saturated fat limits, protein's thermic advantage, and the role of insulin, growth hormone, IGF-1, and cortisol.Most valuable might be the test strategy itself: read the stem slowly, find the keyword like underactive or best strengthen, choose the option that advances the model, and move on. Paul's story proves it's not about age or memorizing a manual—it's about organizing knowledge that actually helps people. Ready to pass and start coaching with purpose? Subscribe, share this with a study partner, and leave a review telling us the NASM concept you want solved next.Want to ask us a question? Email email info@showupfitness.com with the subject line PODCAST QUESTION to get your question answered live on the show! Our Instagram: Show Up Fitness CPT TikTok: Show Up Fitness CPT Website: https://www.showupfitness.com/Become a Personal Trainer Book (Amazon): https://www.amazon.com/How-Become-Personal-Trainer-Successful/dp/B08WS992F8NASM / ACE / ISSA study guide: https://www.showupfitness.com/collections/nasm

Study Guide The Mishna enumerates items that cannot become pigul - meaning that even if the offering is rendered pigul due to improper intent during the sacrificial process, consuming these items does not incur the punishment of karet. This is because pigul applies only to items that are permitted through another action. For example, sacrificial meat becomes permitted only after the imurim (the parts of the sacrifice designated to be burned on the altar) are burned. Items that cannot become pigul include the kometz (a handful of meal offering), incense, meal offerings that are entirely burned, and others. Some items are subject to tannaitic debate, such as the libations that accompany sacrifices and the oil used in the ceremony for leper purification. The libations may be considered an integral part of the sacrifice, and therefore become pigul, just like the sacrifice itself, and the oil may be permitted only after the placement of the blood from the guilt offering, which would also then enable it to become pigul. Conversely, the Mishna lists items that can become pigul, as they are permitted through a specific action. In some sacrifices, like a burnt offering, the sprinkling of blood permits the meat to be burned on the altar; in others, like a sin offering, it permits the meat to be eaten by the kohanim. Rabbi Shimon maintains that pigul applies only to sacrifices offered on the outer altar. Ulla presents an ambiguous statement: he claims that if a kometz becomes pigul but is nevertheless burned on the altar, its pigul status is nullified. He supports this by arguing that if the kometz were not considered properly offered (due to its pigul status), it could not serve as a valid matir (an enabling act) for the remainder of the meal offering to become pigul. The Gemara explores Ulla’s intent. Initially, it suggests that one who eats a kometz rendered pigul is not punished by karet, but this is rejected as it is explicitly stated in the Mishna. The second suggestion is that, although ideally it should not be placed on the altar, if it is placed there, it should not be removed. This too is taught in a Mishna. The third suggestion is that if it were placed on the altar and fell off, it may be returned. However, this is also addressed in a Mishna, which rules that it should not be replaced. The Gemara ultimately concludes that Ulla refers to a case where the kometz fell off after the fire had begun to consume it. Although Ulla discusses this elsewhere, the teaching here emphasizes that this principle applies not only to a limb of an animal that is partially burned, where even the unburned portion is considered connected, but also to a kometz, where even if only part was burned, the entire portion is treated as a single unit and may be returned to the altar. Rabbi Yochanan is quoted as saying that pigul, notar, and impure items that were offered on the altar lose their forbidden status. Rav Chisda challenges the inclusion of impure items, arguing that the altar does not function like a mikveh to purify them. Rabbi Zeira responds by qualifying Rabbi Yochanan’s statement: it applies only when the item was already being consumed by the fire. Rabbi Yitzchak bar Bisna raises a difficulty from a braita that categorizes sacrificial meat as something whose impurity cannot be removed. This challenge is resolved in three distinct ways: by Rava, whose answer is rejected, and by Rav Papa and Ravina. The braita above is then cited in full. It includes four different drashot that aim to prove that the verse in Vayikra 7:20 refers to a person who was impure and ate sacrificial meat, rather than a pure person who ate meat that had become impure. One of the opinions presented is difficult to understand in terms of its derivation. Rav Yitzchak bar Avdimi is praised for offering a clear and insightful explanation, which is then brought and elaborated upon.