Honesty says “Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results” See https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Generic/Generic/SendPrint?print=1&type=1&item=23745 “Killing a Jew is due to "extenuating circumstances," the killer "criminally irresponsible." You don't understand because he shouted "Allahu Akhbar?" Ask the French courts...The “experts” have decided. Traore was crazy, therefore he is “criminally irresponsible”. Hence the shameful conclusion of not instituting a trial, as if Sarah Halimi had not been killed just because she was Jewish. At the beginning, the judiciary’s omission of the aggravated element of a hate crime caused by anti-Semitism was a cover up of the anti-Semitic character of the horrible crime. Now anti-Semitism is denied by the lunatic nature of the terrorist.... All were insane, all were crazy. Crazy as the few brave ones who shouted the alarm in the West, those “crazy Islamophobes” who need to be isolated. France has just given the green light to the next murder of Jews. But maybe we're just all crazy.” No. Aaron is not crazy and never was crazy. French courts are wrong to say the killer is criminally irresponsible, meaning crazy, without true evidence. True evidence of crazy can save a killer from the gallows and can free an agunah, but not obviously fake phony evidence. In 2012 Susan embarked on the path of the fake/phony PhD psychology letter. That year Susan had her lawyer submit an obviously fake/phony 1995 Rigler order of Separation. 1995 was during the 4 years of my 100% frozen TIAA pension in violation of ERISA. I happy and grateful to God, always been. All the decades I was just trying to free my TIAA pension, with patience and with letter writing. There’s something wrong with the NYS civil courts in America. My motion 266 3/25/2019 may rectify things, God willing. Follow, KA, Yehoshua, Berel, Joe Orlow?
Torah thought on daf hayomi Chullin last chapter on “If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings אפרחים or eggs ביצים and the mother sitting רבצת over the fledglings אפרחים or on the eggs על הביצים, do not take the mother together with her young. Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.” (Deuteronomy 22:6-7). I like Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion here: Chullin 141a “Mishnah. If a man took the dam with the young, R. Judah says, he has incurred [forty] stripes, and he need not now let her go. but the Sages say, he must let her go, and he does not incur stripes. This is the general rule: [For the transgression of] any negative precept which admits of a remedy by the subsequent fulfilment of a positive command [lit., in which there is (the command,) rise and do], one does not incur stripes [Provided one fulfilled the, remedial positive act immediately according to one view above, or one did not nullify the chances of performing the remedial act according to the other view above. V. supra p. 815, n. 8 and p. 816, n. 1, notes 5 and 6, and Mak. 15b.]. R. Judah’s states that if one violated “do not take the mother together with her young” he has incurred stripes and can not redeem himself by then “Let the mother go, and take only the young.” Fine, I say. He incurred stripes because he sinned, he violates a clear Torah ordinance that people know well. He has no excuse. Chullin 141b: Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: [It is written,] “They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted—head, legs, and entrails—over the fire. You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.” (Exodus 12:8-10). Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for [lit., after] the [disregarded] prohibition, to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes; so R. Judah. You may then infer from this that the reason for R. Judah's view [in our Mishnah] is that he maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance. This indeed proves it [It cannot be otherwise since here R. Judah expressly states his view that for the transgression of a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act of the transgressor one does not incur stripes.]” Leaving over from the Passover meal is not a sin. Yes, there is a Torah ordinance to burn the leftovers. Not to correct for a sin, but, maybe, just to prevent eating the leftovers at a later time. Yes there is a Torah ordinance to send away the mother bird that hovers רבצת over the fledglings or the eggs. Yet Hertz Chumash states: “The eggs over which the bird sits, and the brood that in need of the mother, are generally unfit for food. Consequently, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched.” I like the view that one who sins and violates “do not take the mother together with her young” not appropriate for him do a the Torah ordinance to send away the mother bird that hovers רבצת over the fledglings or the eggs. Sounds like, a sinner could say, I’ll steal, bad mouth etc and then I’ll return, apologize etc. The sinner may think one will cancel the other. No. The sinner should return, apologize etc but he has incurred stripes, if we had the institution of stripes in a bet din.
Thanks, KA! As usual, I scanned the GA comment for any mention of Yours Truly. Completely missed the shout-out at the end. You, however, caught it. Good work.
I hope next year in Yerushalyim we should all be able to meet and hash things out over Matza meal pancakes (for those who don't keep Gebrochts.)
Don't follow at all. Or try not to. GA's wars on whatever he's warring against don't really grab me. Ground rule at our possible future breakfast Chol HaMoed is that personal grievances are off the table.
The absolute, complete, thorough, out-and-out, utter, total, real, consummate, unqualified, unmitigated, sheer, rank, downright ironic Democratic response to the Mueller report rollout.
Like the Dems didn't try to influence justice during the two years the report was being put together. This Democratic complaint could very well become the textbook case of psychological projection.
Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results
ReplyDeletehttps://quoteinvestigator.com/2017/03/23/same/
You're simply infallible.
Bad news for Democrats. They are going to lose the next Presidential election.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.jpost.com/American-Politics/Non-Orthodox-movements-left-out-of-Trumps-meeting-with-Jewish-leaders-587032
ReplyDeleteNon-Orthodox movements left out of Trump’s meeting with Jewish leaders
Honesty says “Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results”
ReplyDeleteSee https://www.israelnationalnews.com/Generic/Generic/SendPrint?print=1&type=1&item=23745
“Killing a Jew is due to "extenuating circumstances," the killer "criminally irresponsible." You don't understand because he shouted "Allahu Akhbar?" Ask the French courts...The “experts” have decided. Traore was crazy, therefore he is “criminally irresponsible”. Hence the shameful conclusion of not instituting a trial, as if Sarah Halimi had not been killed just because she was Jewish. At the beginning, the judiciary’s omission of the aggravated element of a hate crime caused by anti-Semitism was a cover up of the anti-Semitic character of the horrible crime. Now anti-Semitism is denied by the lunatic nature of the terrorist.... All were insane, all were crazy. Crazy as the few brave ones who shouted the alarm in the West, those “crazy Islamophobes” who need to be isolated. France has just given the green light to the next murder of Jews. But maybe we're just all crazy.”
No. Aaron is not crazy and never was crazy. French courts are wrong to say the killer is criminally irresponsible, meaning crazy, without true evidence. True evidence of crazy can save a killer from the gallows and can free an agunah, but not obviously fake phony evidence. In 2012 Susan embarked on the path of the fake/phony PhD psychology letter. That year Susan had her lawyer submit an obviously fake/phony 1995 Rigler order of Separation. 1995 was during the 4 years of my 100% frozen TIAA pension in violation of ERISA. I happy and grateful to God, always been. All the decades I was just trying to free my TIAA pension, with patience and with letter writing. There’s something wrong with the NYS civil courts in America. My motion 266 3/25/2019 may rectify things, God willing. Follow, KA, Yehoshua, Berel, Joe Orlow?
Torah thought on daf hayomi Chullin last chapter on
ReplyDelete“If, along the road, you chance upon a bird’s nest, in any tree or on the ground, with fledglings אפרחים or eggs ביצים and the mother sitting רבצת over the fledglings אפרחים or on the eggs על הביצים, do not take the mother together with her young. Let the mother go, and take only the young, in order that you may fare well and have a long life.” (Deuteronomy 22:6-7).
I like Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion here:
Chullin 141a
“Mishnah. If a man took the dam with the young, R. Judah says, he has incurred [forty] stripes, and he need not now let her go. but the Sages say, he must let her go, and he does not incur stripes. This is the general rule: [For the transgression of] any negative precept which admits of a remedy by the subsequent fulfilment of a positive command [lit., in which there is (the command,) rise and do], one does not incur stripes [Provided one fulfilled the, remedial positive act immediately according to one view above, or one did not nullify the chances of performing the remedial act according to the other view above. V. supra p. 815, n. 8 and p. 816, n. 1, notes 5 and 6, and Mak. 15b.].
R. Judah’s states that if one violated “do not take the mother together with her young” he has incurred stripes and can not redeem himself by then “Let the mother go, and take only the young.” Fine, I say. He incurred stripes because he sinned, he violates a clear Torah ordinance that people know well. He has no excuse.
Chullin 141b:
Rabina said to R. Ashi: Come and hear: [It is written,] “They shall eat the flesh that same night; they shall eat it roasted over the fire, with unleavened bread and with bitter herbs. Do not eat any of it raw, or cooked in any way with water, but roasted—head, legs, and entrails—over the fire. You shall not leave any of it over until morning; if any of it is left until morning, you shall burn it.” (Exodus 12:8-10). Scripture here came and provided a positive precept as a remedy for [lit., after] the [disregarded] prohibition, to indicate that the prohibition is not punishable by stripes; so R. Judah. You may then infer from this that the reason for R. Judah's view [in our Mishnah] is that he maintains that the precept of letting [the dam] go was intended only in the first instance. This indeed proves it [It cannot be otherwise since here R. Judah expressly states his view that for the transgression of a negative precept which can be remedied by a subsequent act of the transgressor one does not incur stripes.]”
Leaving over from the Passover meal is not a sin. Yes, there is a Torah ordinance to burn the leftovers. Not to correct for a sin, but, maybe, just to prevent eating the leftovers at a later time.
Yes there is a Torah ordinance to send away the mother bird that hovers רבצת over the fledglings or the eggs. Yet Hertz Chumash states:
“The eggs over which the bird sits, and the brood that in need of the mother, are generally unfit for food. Consequently, this commandment will cause man to leave the whole nest untouched.”
I like the view that one who sins and violates “do not take the mother together with her young” not appropriate for him do a the Torah ordinance to send away the mother bird that hovers רבצת over the fledglings or the eggs. Sounds like, a sinner could say, I’ll steal, bad mouth etc and then I’ll return, apologize etc. The sinner may think one will cancel the other. No. The sinner should return, apologize etc but he has incurred stripes, if we had the institution of stripes in a bet din.
Good luck Gerald, and chag Sameach.
ReplyDeleteThanks, KA! As usual, I scanned the GA comment for any mention of Yours Truly. Completely missed the shout-out at the end. You, however, caught it. Good work.
ReplyDeleteI hope next year in Yerushalyim we should all be able to meet and hash things out over Matza meal pancakes (for those who don't keep Gebrochts.)
I see you "follow", Joe? :)
ReplyDeleteDon't follow at all. Or try not to. GA's wars on whatever he's warring against don't really grab me. Ground rule at our possible future breakfast Chol HaMoed is that personal grievances are off the table.
ReplyDeleteThe absolute, complete, thorough, out-and-out, utter, total, real, consummate, unqualified, unmitigated, sheer, rank, downright ironic Democratic response to the Mueller report rollout.
ReplyDeleteLike the Dems didn't try to influence justice during the two years the report was being put together. This Democratic complaint could very well become the textbook case of psychological projection.