Friday, July 28, 2017

A Quick Response To Chillul Hashem


BY  · PUBLISHED  · UPDATED 

5 comments :

  1. Wow 7 couples arrested, what a Chillul Hashem! I agree: “Federal and State social safety-net programs are meant for those in need, even those in need have rules and criteria that must be strictly followed. To deliberately bend a safety-net eligibility rule is stealing, no different than stealing from your friend or neighbor.”

    I would add rabbis forcing husbands to divorce their wives with feminist/public push is a deliberate bend a clear halachic rule on the kosher get. Mendel Epstein et al---big Chillul Hashem.

    This weeks’ parsha ואתחנן we read:
    “Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor. And now, O Israel, give heed to the laws and rules that I am instructing you to observe, so that you may live to enter and occupy the land that the Lord, the God of your fathers, is giving you. (Deuteronomy 3:29, 4:1)
    דברים פרק ג פסוק כט
    וַנֵּשֶׁב בַּגָּיְא מוּל בֵּית פְּעוֹר:
    מדר

    ש תנאים לדברים פרק ג פסוק כט
    ונשב בגיא אמר להם מי גרם לנו שנשב בגיא מעשים רעים שעשינו בפעור: ד"א אמר משה לישראל ראו כמה ביניכם לביני שאני כמה תפלות ובקשות וכמה תחנונים עשיתי ונגזרה עלי גזרה שלא ליכנס לארץ אבל אתם הכעשתם לפניו ארבעים שנה במדבר שנ' (תה' צ"ה י') ארבעים שנה אקוט בדור ולא עוד אלא שגדולים שבכם משתחוים לפעור וימינו פשוטה לקבל אתכם ועתה ישראל הרי אתם חדשים כבר מחול לכם לשעבר

    Translation: “Meanwhile we stayed on in the valley near Beth-peor” He [Moses] said to them: Who caused us to stay on in the valley? The wicked acts we did in Peor…

    The Malbim says here, referring to “He buried him in the valley in the land of Moab, near Beth-peor; and no one knows his burial place to this day. (Deuteronomy 34:6)
    מלבי"ם דברים פרשת ואתחנן פרק ג פסוק כט
    ונשב בגיא, ר"ל שאחרי ששמע התשובה הזאת לא התפלל עוד שיכנס לארץ רק נתישבו בגי ששם היתה קבורת משה, כמ"ש ויקבר אותו בגי בארץ מואב מול בית פעור , כי תחלה ישבו בשטים מקום חטא פעור ועתה ישבו בגיא ושם היה משה עד יום מותו ונקבר שם להכניע שרו של בית פעור כמ"ש חז"ל:

    ReplyDelete
  2. Gerald Aranoff,
    Keep up your good work! But next time don't forget that the latest work of our "rabbis" is to tell women to divorce without a GET and remarry. Of course, her children will be mamzerim. And a forced GET is also invalid, and the woman who remarries with an invalid GET has mamzerim for children.
    I received a phone call from a rabbi of a country far away from America who was upset that people are giving women the right to remarry without a GET. The same thing was written up about a senior rabbi in France. This is all about making mamzerim. Those children are in great danger because of the feminists.
    Dovid Eidensohn

    ReplyDelete
  3. True “people are giving women the right to remarry without a GET.” True “This is all about making mamzerim. Those children are in great danger because of the feminists.”
    How can that be? The feminists rely on a kangaroo bet din. http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/kangaroo-court.html:
    Kangaroo court

    An unauthorized, bogus court.

    Origin

    Kangaroo courts are sham legal proceedings which are set-up in order to give the impression of a fair legal process. In fact, they offer no impartial justice as the verdict, invariably to the detriment of the accused, is decided in advance. Such courts are associated with groups who have found a need to dispense a rough and ready form of justice but are, temporarily at least, outside the bounds of formal judicial processes; for example, inmates in jail, soldiers at war, settlers of lands where no jurisdiction has yet been established.

    See, http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2015/04/epstein-torture-for-get-case-fbi.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=feed:+blogspot/ijwsm+(daas+torah+-+issues+of+jewish+identity)

    I live in Israel, a Netanyahu and Trump supporter. Feminists pushing for women to divorce without a GET and remarry are wicked. They’d better recant while they can. This goes for the evil dictator of North Korea.

    I quote Job on the fate of the wicked (18:5-21):
    “Indeed, the light of the wicked fails; The flame of his fire does not shine. The light in his tent darkens; His lamp fails him. His iniquitous strides are hobbled; His schemes overthrow him. He is led by his feet into the net; He walks onto the toils. The trap seizes his heel; The noose tightens on him. The rope for him lies hidden on the ground;
    His snare, on the path. Terrors assault him on all sides And send his feet flying. His progeny hunger; Disaster awaits his wife. The tendons under his skin are consumed;
    Death’s first-born consumes his tendons. He is torn from the safety of his tent;
    Terror marches him to the king. It lodges in his desolate tent; Sulfur is strewn upon his home. His roots below dry up, And above, his branches wither. All mention of him vanishes from the earth; He has no name abroad. He is thrust from light to darkness,
    Driven from the world. He has no seed or breed among his people, No survivor where he once lived. Generations to come will be appalled at his fate, As the previous ones are seized with horror. These were the haunts of the wicked; Here was the place of him who knew not God.”

    ReplyDelete
  4. Are the feminists giving up on forced gets and pushing, instead, that the angry wife of a recalcitrant husband should remarry with no get? This is radical feminism. All supporters of such are truly wicked.


    מלבי"ם איוב פרק יח פסוק ה
    גם. אולם זה יהיה ברשע. שאצלו תמות גם הנפש מיתת עולם. וזה התשובה על שאלת רשע וטוב לו. כי סופו יהיה לאבדון שתכרת נפשו הרוחניות שהוא אור הגויה ונרה. ור"ל שהרשעים לא לבד שגופם ימות. כי גם האור שלהם ידעך. שהיא הנפש המאירה אל הגוף. ולא יגה שביב אשו כי עת ידעך האור מן הנר. דרך האש לשוב כמה פעמים אל הפתילה ולהגיה שנית. אבל הרשעים אחר שידעך נרם. לא יגה אשו השובב וחוזר אל הפתילה. ר"ל שנפשם תכרת ולא תשוב עוד לראות באור החיים:
    My translation:
    “Indeed.” But that would be with the wicked for to him will also die the soul an eternal death. This is the answer to the question wicked and good to him. For his end will be the destruction of his spiritual soul, which is the body and light. That is to say, For the wicked not only their bodies shall die, for their light shall also perish: for it is the soul that enlightens the body…
    מלבי"ם איוב פרק יח פסוק יט
    לא נין לו ולא נכד בעמו, שגם שארית בניו יאבדו, ולא ישאר שריד במגוריו. שגם גרי ביתו יאבדו עמו
    Wow, even those that live in the house of the wicked will perish too. There be no more remains of those that lived with him, for the dwellers in his house will perish with him.
    This is a warning to all supporters of radical feminism.

    ReplyDelete
  5. “We are saddened beyond words by the arrests of seven couples in our town. As firm believers in the principle of ‘innocent until proven guilty,’ we suspend judgment until the disposition of these charges, and are comforted knowing that our judicial system is an able arbiter of justice.

    Daf Hayomi, Sanhedrin 29a:
    “BY ENEMY, ANY MAN etc. Our Rabbis taught; And he was not an enemy;[ “or inadvertently dropped upon him any deadly object of stone, and death resulted—though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm—“ (Numbers 35:23). This verse is understood to refer to the witnesses in a case of murder, not to the accused. As regards the murderer it is written, “to which a manslayer could escape, one who unwittingly slew a fellow man without having been hostile to him in the past; he could flee to one of these cities and live” (Deuteronomy 4:42)] then he may give evidence. Again, “and did not seek his harm” then he may be his judge. [Because immediately after this it is written, And the Congregation shall judge.] Here we find [the exclusion of] an enemy. Whence is deduced [the exclusion of] a friend? Read [these texts] thus: And he was not his enemy, nor his friend, then he may give evidence, neither sought his harm, nor his good, then he may be his judge. Is then his friend actually stated? [Surely it is inadmissible to deduce a law by adding to the text!] But it is a matter of logic. Why is an enemy [excluded]? Because of his disaffection [Lit., alienation of his mind]. Then a friend too [is ineligible] because of his friendly inclination [Lit., the proximity of his mind]. Now, how do the Rabbis [In the Mishnah who do not disqualify a man on such grounds] interpret this text, “though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm” One [expression] intimates [his unfitness to be] a judge [In which case they agree with R. Judah]; the other they interpret as has been taught: R. Jose son of R. Judah said, “though he was not an enemy of his and did not seek his harm” from this we deduce that two scholars who hate each other may not sit together as judges.

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.