Edifice Complex US Aircraft Carrier Could Be Renamed After Trump

https://www.newsweek.com/who-is-doris-miller-aircraft-carrier-could-be-renamed-after-donald-trump-12351168

Reports that the U.S. Navy is considering renaming the future USS Doris Miller aircraft carrier and potentially naming it after President Donald Trump have sparked criticism from lawmakers and veterans' advocates, while shining a renewed spotlight on one of the most celebrated enlisted sailors in American military history.

The Ford-class aircraft carrier, designated CVN-81, was named after Doris "Dorie" Miller during Trump's first term in 2020, marking the first time a U.S. aircraft carrier would be named after an enlisted sailor and the first named after a Black American.

Now, Navy officials have discussed changing the vessel's name, with Trump reportedly among the names under consideration.

Torah Learning and Pleasure

Avoda Zara (19a)   Levi and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, were sitting before Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and they were learning the Torah portion. When they finished the book that they were learning and were ready to begin a new subject, Levi said: Let them bring us the book of Proverbs; and Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, said: Let them bring us the book of Psalms. He compelled Levi to acquiesce, and they brought a book of Psalms. When they arrived here, at the verse: “But his delight is in the Torah of the Lord,” Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi explained the verse and said: A person can learn Torah only from a place in the Torah that his heart desires. Levi said: My teacher, you have given us, i.e., me, permission to rise and leave, as I wish to study Proverbs, not Psalms. 

Loving Learning Or Learning What You Love?

 https://www.torahmusings.com/2026/05/loving-learning-or-learning-what-you-love/

Question: Should a person only learn what he enjoys?

Short Answer: While learning what you enjoy has special power, there are certain limits to this principle.

The Gemara (Avoda Zarah 19a) states that a person only learns “from a place” that he wants to learn from. Rashi explains that this means that a Rebbi should teach his student the mesechta of the student’s choosing, as the Torah will remain with the student when he learns a topic he enjoys or is interested in learning. This fits with the next story in the Gemara, where Levi looked for an excuse to leave shiur when it was not learning what he wanted. Rabbeinu Chananel has a slightly different girsa – a person only learns what his heart desires.

Does this learning what you desire principle apply to children?

The sefer Michtam L’Dovid (cited in Avodah B’rurah, ibid) holds that it does not apply, as a child has no “da’as” to decide what he desires.

On the other hand, R’ Chaim Segal (Gam Ani Odecha, p.184) holds that you may learn torah with a young child on erev tisha ba’av, because otherwise the child won’t learn anything. Certainly, the child is not interested in learning the “bad topics” normally learned on tisha ba’av, and thus the learning what you desire principle trumps him not learning. R’ Segal apparently holds that this principle applies to young children as well.

Dead buried outside Israel

 Bereishis Rabba (96: 06)  The righteous who are buried outside of Israel what happens to them.  God makes cavities like channels for them in the earth, and they roll along in them until they reach Eretz Israel, when G-d will infuse into them a spirit of life and they will arise. How do we know this? Because it is written, Behold, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, O My people; and I will bring you into the land of Egypt; and after that, I will put My spirit in you, and ye shall live. Resh Lakish  said: There is a text explicitly teaching that when they reach Eretz Israel G-d will put a soul into them, for it says, He giveth a soul unto the people upon it.

Harvard pushed back against 'buffoon' Trump: Laurence Tribe

Obey Authority even if Mistaken

 Horios (2a): If the Sanhedrin  mistakenly rules that it is permissible to transgress one of the mitzvos of the Torah and an individual does so by error because of their ruling… he is exempt from bring a sin offering according to R’ Yehuda but not according to the Sages because he relied on the ruling of the Sanhedrin. However if when the Sanhedrin issued their erroneous ruling, one of its members was aware that the ruling was mistaken or even a student who was capable of deciding the law himself was aware that the ruling was mistaken – and yet he acted according to the mistaken ruling…. he is obligated to bring a sin offering since he wasn’t dependent on the ruling of the Sanhedrin….

Yerushalmi (Horios 1:1): You might think that you must obey the [Sanhedrin or Rabbinic authorities] even when they tell you that “right” is “left”  and that “left” is “right” – but the Torah says that you are to follow after them “right and left”. Thus it is only when they tell you that “right” is “right” and “left” is “left” that you should obey them. 

Ramban (Devarim 17:11): Left and Right. Rashi explains that even if the Sanhedrin tell you that right is left or left is right –you must obey them. Meaning that even if you are certain that the Sanhedrin has erred and it is as obvious to you as the difference between your right and left – you still must comply with their understanding of the Torah. In other words you can’t argue, “How can I eat that  which is prohibited by the Torah or how can I execute this person when I know he has not transgressed?” Rather your attitude must be, “The absolute obedience to the rulings of the Sanhedrin is what G d has commanded me and I must observe the mitzvos exactly as the Sanhedrin  says. The Torah was given to me according to their understanding – even if they err.” This is what happened when R’ Yehoshua had a dispute with the Sanhedrin as to what day was Yom Kippur. R’ Gamliel the head of the Sanhedrin ordered R’ Yehoshua to appear before him on the day that he thought was Yom Kippur. the necessity for this mitzva is very great. That is because the Torah was given to us in writing and it is known that people don’t think identically in all matters. Therefore it would be natural for disputes over what the Torah means to continually multiply and it would end up that there would be many Torahs instead of one. That is why this verse tells you that one must obey the Sanhedrin which convenes in G d’s presence in the Temple – in everything they say concerning the understanding of the Torah. There is no difference in the requirement to obey whether this Torah understanding is part of the Tradition which goes back what G d told Moshe or what their understanding of the meaning or intent of a Torah verse.  This requirement to accept their Torah understanding is because the Torah was in fact given to us according to their understanding. Therefore they must be obeyed even if their view contrasts with your understanding as left contrasts with right and surely if you agree with their understanding. That is because G d’s spirit is on those who serve in His Temple and He does not desert His pious ones. G d always protects them from error and mistake. The Sifri  says that you must obey them even if appears that they have reversed right with left and left with right. 

Michtav M’Eliyahu (1:75): The Talmudic sages (Chazal) have told us to obey the words of gedolim – even if they tell us that left is right. This expression isn’t meant to imply that we must obey them even when they have actually erred. But rather that we must listen to them even when we - with our lowly understanding – think that we definitely have observed that they have erred.  That is because our senses are totally nothing as if they were the dust of the earth compared to the clarity of their intellect and the Heavenly support they have. Thus our belief that they have erred has no practical consequences since there is a rule that a beis din cannot nullify the ruling of another beis din unless it is greater in wisdom and number. Even without this rule it is clear that what we think is awareness or experience is only a figment of our imagination and unstable moods. This superiority is Daas Torah within the framework of emunas chachom (faith in our sages).

Chinuch (#495): And you obey all Sanhedrin’s rulings - … This applies in the time when there was a Sanhedrin in Jerusalem and it applies equally to both males and females. Everyone is commanded to do exactly as they teach. Included in this mitzvah is the obligation to listen in every generation to the judge. In other words to a major sages who live in your time and generation. This is explained in Rosh HaShanna (25b), “And to the judge which will be in your days. Yiftach in his generation is like Shmuel in his.” In other words we are required to listen to Yiftach in his generation just as we listen to Shmuel in his generation. Therefore if one transgresses this commandment and does not obey the directives of the gedolim of his generation according to that which they teach – he has nullified this commandment. The punishment for transgressing it  is very great since this is the strong foundation that the Torah rests on and it is well known to all who are intelligent. 

Minchas Chinuch (#496): … It appears as if the Torah commandments to obey rabbinic authority only apply to the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem. Consequently the status of zakein mamrei only applies to the Sanhedrin as we will explain later [section 6]. Thus the prohibition of lo sasur only applies to it. Therefore after the Sanhedrin moved from the Temple mount it is possible that these Torah commandments do not apply to the beis din in subsequent times. This is apparent from the language of the Torah itself which states “When you will go up” which refers to the Sanhedrin and “And you shall do according to what they tell you… from that place do not turn…”. All of this is clearly referring to the Sanhedrin in Jerusalem. So the question is what is the source that requires obeying the sages in each generation? The Chinuch writes here - included in the mitzvah to listen to the Sanhedrin is the requirement to listen and do what the sages say in all generations…Therefore he concludes that if one does not obey the directives of the gedolim in his generation he transgresses these mitzvos. But how does the Chinuch know this? The Sanhedrin is obviously unique because the glory of G d is present there every day and the Torah was entrusted to them… However it appears that this is from the words of the Rambam in Sefer HaMitzvos and his Introduction to Mishneh Torah and in the Ramban and they certainly must have found a source for it. However the Ramban restricts the authority of Sanhedrin which is learned from these verses. He says that this commandment to listen to the Sanhedrin only applies to their explanation of a Torah verse or what they say is from Moshe based on the oral tradition or what they learn using the 13 Hermeneutic Principles. Thus it only applies to Torah laws… Consequently the Torah says that it is necessary to act according to the words of the Sanhedrin when they explain Torah laws or else it is a transgression of this prohibition and commandment. In contrast those things were decreed by the Sages are not included in this Torah obligation. The Sages merely associated this Torah verse with the obligation to listen to their decrees – but in fact that is not the intent of the verse. See the Ramban for an extensive discussion of this. Be aware that even according to the view of the Ramban – there are many Torah laws which are learned from the 13 Hermeneutic Principles or from Moshe based on the oral tradition. Therefore when these are transgressed – not only is it a violation of the Torah verses but it is also a violation of the verses to obey the Sanhedrin. Thus they are to be viewed more seriously than Torah laws which are stated explicitly in the Torah.

Chasam Sofer (Choshen Mishpat #191): The Sifri concludes, “Even if the Sanhedrin tells you that right is left… and surely if they tell you that right is right and left is left [you must obey them].” This doesn’t seem to be consistent. What is the second part which starts with, “and surely”? The Zakein Mamrei (rebellious judge) is asserting that what he considers right is truly “right” and that the position of the majority of the Sanhedrin is “left” i.e., false. Therefore who is to determine that the second part is, “and surely”? This seems to be a major difficulty. In fact, however, the clear explanation is as follows. The Zakein Mamrei (rebellious judge) and his colleagues are major scholars who are in dispute with the Sanhedrin. And even though the Sanhedrin is composed of the leading Jewish authorities - who sit in G-d’s presence in His house (i.e., the Temple) - there is no necessity that their reasoning in this matter is true. In fact it could be that the Zakein Mamrei’s understanding of the Torah verse is closer to the truth than theirs is. This is so even if they are more numerous and in general sharper in their thinking. On the other hand it is possible that in fact that the Zakein Mamrei and his supporters number in the tens of thousands - while the Sanhedrin cannot be more than 71 people. Nevertheless G d has decreed we must follow the scriptural understanding of the Sanhedrin in halacha since its source is no longer in Heaven. Therefore we don’t pay attention even to bas kol (voice from Heaven) or a prophet who claims to know the halacha in Heaven. Furthermore a prophet who claims prophetic knowledge of halachic is deserving of the death penalty for this crime of being a false prophet – since G d would never provide a prophet vision of a halachic question. Even when Yehoshua ben Nun forgot thousands of halachos, they weren’t restored through prophecy but rather through the legal reasoning of Ozniel ben Kenaz. Besides who knows for certain that Ozniel ben Kenaz ascertained the truth through his reasoning? The understanding of man is transient in its understanding of Biblical verses as well as the reasoning of kal v’chomer and other midos. The fact is that legal authority is because G d gave the Torah according to man’s understanding in order that there shouldn’t be an every growing number of unresolved disputes – [and not because the truth was necessarily ascertained]. Therefore G d made the provision that if chas v’shalom the majority of Sanhedrin erred and permitted a substance which was actually prohibited and the people ate it – G d would not count it as a sin. In other words since the Sanhedrin erred, the people did not commit a sin by eating the prohibited substance. Furthermore if the Zakein Mamrei himself decided to be stringent and not eat this substance because of his original suspicions – even though in Heaven it is known that he was correct – he is deserving of death as the Rambam rules (Hilchos Mamrim 4). This punishment is deserved even if he merely refrained from eating the disputed substance. This law is very constructive in that it works to prevent unresolved disputes amongst the Jews. Consequently this Zakein Mamrei should not have had the slightest concern about eating the substance that Sanhedrin had declared permitted – even if prior to the final ruling of Sanhedrin he was certain it was prohibited. Similarly if Sanhedrin declares a certain type of activity prohibited on Shabbos, he should not be concerned about his initial certainty that it was prohibited. In other words even if the Sanhedrin mistakenly tells you concerning a halacha which it is clear in Heaven [“right”] that it is the opposite of what they say [“left”]  - their ruling is in fact correct [“right”]. That is because G d accepts what they do even though it is mistaken in the objective sense. However there is an alternative explanation of the Sifri. We are to believe that what the Sanhedrin is saying is true [“right”] and that they have not erred. In other words we are to believe that they have ascertained the proper understanding of what G d expressed in the Torah because G d gave the Torah according to their understanding. Thus we see that both sides are sincerely motivated to discover the truth. However if the Sanhedrin errs in their rulings then all Jews end up erring also – but it is considered that they had been forced. However this alternative explanation assumes that G d guards his pious ones from erring and thus misleading the Jewish people – since they want to do G d’s will. Now we can properly explain the second part of the Sifri, “and surely they must be obeyed when they say that the truly right is right.” The explanation of the Sifri according to this alternative explanation is that even when they had erred in ascertaining what the Torah mandates, nevertheless they would have discovered what appears to them to be the truth – and G d would accept the validity of their erroneous decision. And surely we are to understand that they have in fact not erred and have correctly told us what the Torah actually mandates. Thus the alternative explanation is based on the assumption that the Sanhedrin is protected from error. However this second explanation is problematic since it is asserting infallibility. In other words the second explanation is saying that by nature man is capable of error; however the sanctity of the Temple prevents it. However this seems to be a violation of Torah not being in Heaven – since even a Bas Kol and even a prophet cannot make halachic decisions. Therefore it would seem that the first explanation is better. Thus the Sifri clearly means that even if the Sanhedrin errs, G d will not count it as a sin and thus G d is not allowing the Sanhedrin to cause the people to sin. If you study the comments of the Ramban to Torah you will understand that he is also expressing this view. So while the Sanhedrin is forgiven when it makes an honest mistake, G d forbid to say that they have the power to deliberately alter even the slightest matter. Such a view is that of the Sadducees and early heretics.

Yad HaMelech (Hilchos Mamrim 1:2): …It is clear that according to the understanding of Rashi and the Mizrachi the intent of the Sifre [that one must listen to the rabbis even when it apparently involves Torah prohibitions] is against the view of the Babylonian Talmud and also against the Yerushalmi. Furthermore since the Rambam omits mention of this Sifre therefore we have only the halachic view that is explicit in the Bavli and Yerushalmi.  Thus all halachic rulings which appear to contradict the words of the Torah e.g., eating prohibited fats or killing an innocent man – irrespective as to the authority of the rabbi giving the ruling they are not to be accepted. It is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi and also the Bavli that if someone errs in this matter and thinks it is an obligation to listen to these rabbis to eat fat prohibited by the Torah because he thinks it is a mitzva to always obey the rabbis – this individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice as he would be for eating any Torah prohibited food in error.

Sifri (Devarim 154:11): Right and left - Even if it appears in your eyes that “right” is “left” and that “left” is “right” – you should obey them.

Torah Temima (Devarim 17:11.62):  Don’t turn right or left … Even if your view and reasoning inclines the opposite of the view of the Sanhedrin and their reasoning. That is because it is well known that in all matters – people’s views and reasoning differ. This is mentioned in Berachos (58a), “When you see a crowd of Jews you should say the beracha, Blessed is He who discerns secrets. That is because the views of men are not the same.” We see that even in one halacha that there are strongly divergent views – some will declare it to be impure while others say it is pure, some say it is prohibited while others permit it. So even when it is obvious in your eyes that the truth is with you - since you know how to distinguish between right and left – nevertheless you should listen to the Sanhedrin in their ruling and reasoning. It is clear from this that you are only obligated to obey them concerning right and left only if seems that they are wrong. But if you in fact know that they are wrong e.g., they are permitting eating forbidden fats or allowing a marriage between prohibited partners – then it is prohibited to listen to them. This is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi (Horios) that I mention in the previous drasha… However this understanding is contradicted by the Ramban who writes, “Even if you think in your heart that they are in error and it is obvious to you as your right and left – you should still follow what they say. Don’t be bothered by the fact that you are eating prohibited fats or that you will be executing a person you view as innocent – but you should say that is what G d has commanded me to do… according to their understanding the Torah was given to me – even if they err.” These words seem to teach that even if the Sanhedrin permits something which is absolutely forbidden by the Torah that you are obligated to obey them! However the words of the Yerushalmi (Horios) that I cited in the previous section explicitly refute such an understanding. Furthermore commonsense rejects this entirely… Therefore we are forced to explain that the intent of the Ramban is what we have written. It must be in a case where it is not definitely prohibited fats… but it merely seems to be that way based on their deduction and reasoning which you view as mistaken…

LevinAt11: Kee-Saitzai-Don't Murder

 

בס"ד

ע"ש פרשת כי תצא, תשפו

Linked below* is this week's LevinAt11 radio broadcast Aug. 20, '26.

מצורף:* ראדיו הרב יהודה לעוין, שליט"א, כי תצא תשפו.

* https://ci3.googleusercontent.com/meips/ADKq_NakbZe_YcarsXKRLaICNfi88uKn7bvA2ZhWWds5s8idw00nUXSCp9M75IL2Zc9Y09vmSxEDO3Kv5EJUlGY9C4S4WYH8mMHfQ4qBQ1ZIlJuA5jStDSDX5sfFAw=s0-d-e1-ft#https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_10_generic_list.png

~~~~~~~~~~

Topics Include:

• a few contemporary issues and the Parsha (cross-dressing; Lashon Hara; Amalek);

• Callousness toward murder, both intentional and recklessly negligent; 

° see Rashi Sanhedrin 57a, bottom:

ד"ה כיוצא בו: ... דאילו שופך דמים בשוגג - שפיכות דמים גמור הוא - אלא רחמנא חס עליה."

° the need for proper Chinuch early on;

• Dangerous hallucinogenic drugs, including Ayahuasca, are infiltrating our communities;

° "thank you" New-Age trafficker Rephoel Szmerla & Co.;

° their threat to cognitive health;

• Ascendant Jew-Hatred and anti-semitism; how to respond, and how not to:

° Kiddush HaShem vs. giving the Jew-haters the free publicity and recognition they crave;

° reacting to false accusations via introspection and repentance, based on Middah Keneged Middah, rather than via self-serving anti-antisemitism grandstanding and grant-raising.

• NJ Gov. Sherrill signed abortion-at-whim/ transgender-tyranny enforcement bill S2260 into "law;"

° a very brief recognition of those who battled against it, against overwhelming odds - including Greg Quinlan and Mrs. Marie Tasy - as authentic HaKaras HaTov, in marked contrast to all of the cheap imitation "HaKaras HaTov" being routinely trafficked to naive Orthodox voters - as a means to advance selfish, anti-Torah political and financial agendas.

~~~~~~    ~~~~~~    ~~~~~~  

Last week's broadcast - פרשת שופטים:

https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2026/08/levinat11-eclipsing-elections-shoftim86.html

~~~

Previous week's broadcast (Parshas Re'aih), with links to broadcasts of the month of Menachem Av:

https://daattorah.blogspot.com/2026/08/levinat11-reversepartisanism.html

~~~~~~    ~~~~~~    ~~~~~~  

כתיבה וחתימה טובה,

Good Shabbos,

Rabbi Noson Shmuel Leiter,

Executive Director,

Help Rescue Our Children

Email:  torahjewsfordecency@gmail.com

845.642.1679

Direct: 771.215.8892

Israeli Helpline: 03.721.3337

Heard weekly on New Jersey's WSNR Radio 620AM, co-hosting the renowned Levin At Eleven program, every Thursday evening, 11pm to midnight (ET).

~~~~~~    ~~~~~~    ~~~~~~  

Broadcast weekly by: Davidzon Radio: davidzonradio.com 718) 303-8000

 Levin 08-20-2026_HQ.mp3

'PURE CORRUPTION': Joe blasts GOP for staying quiet over Trump family business dealings

NJ man pleads guilty to ‘Ponzi-like’ scheme that defrauded nearly 100, including other Orthodox Jews, of more than $47 million

 https://www.jns.org/news/u-s-news/nj-man-pleads-guilty-to-ponz-like-scheme-that-defrauded-nearly-100-including-other-orthodox-jews-of-more-than-47-million

Leor Moshe, 43, an Orthodox Jew from Lakewood, N.J., faces up to 20 years in prison and $250,000 in fines after pleading guilty to wire fraud in a scheme that defrauded more than 97 people of more than $47 million in a “Ponzi-like investment scheme,” Robert Frazer, U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, said on Thursday.

From June 2019 to June 2023, Moshe tricked people into investing in his company, Capital Funding ASAP, by “falsely representing, among other things, that their investments would be used exclusively to fund short-term business loans that would generate returns between 9% and 53%,” the U.S. Department of Justice stated.

“In reality, Moshe used the money to make Ponzi-like payments to earlier investors and for personal expenses such as gambling debts, home renovations, mortgage loans and car loans,” it stated. “Moshe obtained approximately $47 million from investors, who were predominantly members of the Orthodox Jewish community, and used approximately $11 million for personal expenses.”

Yiftach in generation is like Shmuel in his Generation

 Rosh Hashanna (25b) Moses and Aaron among his priests and Samuel among them that call on his name. We see therefore that the Scripture places three of the most questionable characters on the same level as three of the the most estimable characters, to show that Jerubaal in his generation is like Moses in his generation, Bedan in his generation is like Aaron in his generation, Jepthah in his generation is like Samuel in his generation, and to teach you that the most worthless, once he has been appointed a leader of the community, is to be accounted like the mightiest of the mighty. Scripture says also: And thou shalt come unto the priests the Levites and to the judge thou shall be in those days. Can we then imagine that a man should go to a judge who is not in his days? This shows that you must be content to go to the judge who is in your days. It also says; Say not, How was it that the former days were better than these.

Dead Aware of the Suffering of the Living?

 Berachos (18a)  R. Hiyya and R. Jonathan were once walking about in a cemetery, and the blue fringe of R. Jonathan was trailing on the ground. Said R. Hiyya to him: Lift it up, so that the dead should not say: Tomorrow they are coming to join us and now they are insulting us! He said to him: Do they know so much? Is it not written, But the dead know not anything? He replied to him: If you have read once, you have not repeated; if you have repeated, you have not gone over a third time; if you have gone over a third time, you have not had it explained to you. For the living know that they shall die: these are the righteous who in their death are called living as it says. And Benaiah the son of Jehoiada, the son of a living man from Kabzeel, who had done mighty deeds, he smote the two altar-hearths of Moab; he went down and also slew a lion in the midst of a pit in the time of snow.

Berachos (18b)  The sons of R. Hiyya went out to cultivate their property, and they began to forget their learning. They tried very hard to recall it. Said one to the other: Does our father know of our trouble? How should he know, replied the other, seeing that it is written, His sons come to honour and he knoweth it not? Said the other to him: But does he not know? Is it not written: But his flesh grieveth for him, and his soul mourneth over him? And R. Isaac said commenting on this: The worm is as painful to the dead as a needle in the flesh of the living? He replied: It is explained that they know their own pain, they do not know the pain of others. Is that so? Has it not been taught: It is related that a certain pious man gave a denar to a poor man on the eve of New Year in a year of drought, and his wife scolded him, and he went and passed the night in the cemetery, and he heard two spirits conversing with one another. Said one to her companion: My dear, come and let us wander about the world and let us hear from behind the curtain10 what suffering is coming on the world. Said her companion to her: I am not able, because I am buried in a matting of reeds. But do you go, and whatever you hear tell me. So the other went and wandered about and returned. Said her companion to her: My dear, what have you heard from behind the curtain? She replied: I heard that whoever sows after the first rainfall will have his crop smitten by hail. So the man went and did not sow till after the second rainfall, with the result that everyone else's crop was smitten and his was not smitten. The next year he again went and passed the night in the cemetery, and heard the two spirits conversing with one another. Said one to her companion: Come and let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain what punishment is coming upon the world. Said the other to her: My dear, did I not tell you that I am not able because I am buried in a matting of reeds? But do you go, and whatever you hear, come and tell me. So the other one went and wandered about the world and returned. She said to her: My dear, what have you heard from behind the curtain? She replied: I heard that whoever sows after the later rain will have his crop smitten with blight. So the man went and sowed after the first rain with the result that everyone else's crop was blighted and his was not blighted.16 Said his wife to him: How is it that last year everyone else's crop was smitten and yours was not smitten, and this year everyone else's crop is blighted and yours is not blighted? So he related to her all his experiences. The story goes that shortly afterwards a quarrel broke out between the wife of that pious man and the mother of the child, and the former said to the latter, Come and I will show you your daughter buried in a matting of reeds. The next year the man again went and spent the night in the cemetery and heard those conversing together. One said: My dear, come and let us wander about the world and hear from behind the curtain what suffering is coming upon the world. Said the other: My dear, leave me alone; our conversation has already been heard among the living. This would prove that they know? —Perhaps some other man after his decease went and told them.

Berachos (18b) Whence do we know that the dead converse with one another? Because it says: And the Lord said unto him: This is the land which I swore unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying. What is the meaning of saying? G-d said to Moses: Say to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob: The oath which I swore to you I have already carried out for your descendants.

Berachos (18b)  The father of Samuel had some money belonging to orphans deposited with him. When he died, Samuel was not with him, and they called him, ‘The son who consumes the money of orphans’. So he went after his father to the cemetery, and said to them [the dead]. I am looking for Abba. They said to him: There are many Abbas here. I want Abba b. Abba, he said. They replied: There are also several Abbas b. Abba here. He then said to them: I Want Abba b. Abba the father of Samuel; where is he? They replied: He has gone up to the Academy of the Sky. Meanwhile he saw Levi sitting outside. He said to him: Why are you sitting outside? Why have you not gone up to heaven? He replied: Because they said to me: For as many years as you did not go up to the academy of R. Efes and hurt his feelings, we will not let you go up to the Academy of the Sky. Meanwhile his father came. Samuel observed that he was both weeping and laughing. He said to him: Why are you weeping? He replied: Because you are coming here soon. And why are you laughing? Because you are highly esteemed in this world. He thereupon said to him: If I am esteemed, let them take up Levi; and they did take up Levi. He then said to him: Where is the money of the orphans? He replied: Go and you will find it in the case of the millstones. The money at the top and the bottom is mine, that in the middle is the orphans’ He said to him: Why did you do like that? He replied: So that if thieves came, they should take mine, and if the earth destroyed any, it should destroy mine. Does not this show that they know? —Perhaps Samuel was exceptional: as he was esteemed, they proclaimed beforehand, Make way for him!

Ibn Ezra (Devarim 18:11): Going to cemeteries to ask the dead, and taking a bone of a dead man in order that he will appear to him in a dream are things which are abominations to G d. In truth a person’s heart should always be pure with his Creator and when he is dependent upon his wisdom to seek the facts and what will be in the future independent of G d then in fact his heart is deficient and in error. Whoever wants to seek this information should enquire from G d by means of His prophets. That is why the prohibition necromancy is followed by a discussion of prophets….

Israel confirms Syria strike: 'We repeatedly warned Syria' over Turkish troop deployment

 https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/08/19/israel-confirms-syria-strike-we-repeatedly-warned-syria-over-turkish-troop-deployment/

For the first time, Israel has officially acknowledged carrying out the strike on the Abu al-Duhur air base in Syria's Idlib province, near the Turkish border. The Prime Minister's Office issued an English-language statement on X late Tuesday night saying the Syrian government had been on the verge of violating a security status quo agreed with Israel.

"Israel and Syria agreed to a status quo in security matters, which Syria was on the verge of breaching by permitting Turkish troops to deploy at an airbase near Aleppo," the statement said. "Israel repeatedly warned Syria that such a deployment would pose a threat to Israel's security. Syria chose to ignore these warnings. Israel will not tolerate threats to its security, and would welcome a return to the status quo."

Politics drove antisemitism probes against Ivy League schools, DOJ whistleblower says

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2026/08/18/politics-behind-probes-antisemitism-ivy-league-schools-whistleblower-says/

The Trump administration task force charged with investigating antisemitism on Ivy League campuses pressured universities into punitive settlements despite turning up little to no evidence of systemic abuse, according to a whistleblower complaint made public Tuesday.

The complaint — filed by Haley Van Erem, a former career attorney in the Justice Department’s civil rights division who said she was involuntarily detailed to work on the probes last year — alleged that the outcomes of investigations into schools like Harvard, Brown and Columbia were “predetermined without regard to the evidence” in a “politically mandated effort” to suspend their government funding and grab headlines.

When career attorneys raised objections that the evidence did not support the administration’s position or the tactics it was pursuing, including targeting Muslim professors for interviews, they were overruled and ignored, she said.

“Ms. Van Erem and other DOJ assignees repeatedly warned that funding suspensions lacked legal basis and that evidence did not support findings of violations at Brown,” Van Erem’s attorneys wrote in the 25-page filing, adding, “In the cases of Columbia and Harvard, no complete investigation was conducted.”

Van Erem left the Justice Department in May 2025, her attorneys said, because she was “unwilling to be made vulnerable to further participation in politically motivated investigations unsupported by facts and contrary to law.”

Her disclosures Tuesday could bolster concerns raised by critics that the administration’s self-proclaimed push to combat antisemitism on campus was in fact an effort to punish schools it deemed ideologically opposed to its agenda. Van Erem’s account raised questions about past settlements the administration has struck with universities under investigation as well as pending probes that have yet to be resolved.

Harmful to Sight

 Chagiga (16a) Anyone who looks at three things, his eyes become dim; at the rainbow, and at the Prince, and at the priests.