“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” No. Signs are that Trump impeachment will have no witnesses testifying. Likely Trump will prevail. Yes we have videos of everything, including the Trump 1-hour speech before the riot. Signs are that Netanyahu’s trial will have many witnesses testifying to Netanyahu’s detriment. I cite Rashi on Exodus 23:2 ואני אומר ליישבו על אופניו כפשוטו, כך פתרונו: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת - אם ראית רשעים מטין משפט, לא תאמר הואיל ורבים הם, הנני נוטה אחריהם: ולא תענה על ריב לנטת וגו' - ואם ישאל הנדון על אותו המשפט אל תעננו על הריב דבר הנוטה אחרי אותן רבים להטות את המשפט מאמתו אלא אמור את המשפט כאשר הוא, וקולר יהא תלויל בצואר הרבים: Torah thought on משפטים. “But if the slave העבד declares אמר יאמר: I love my master, and my wife את אשתי, and my children את בני; I will not go free לא אצא חפשי;” (Exodus 21:5). שמות פרשת משפטים פרק כא פסוק ה וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי: רש"י את אשתי - השפחה: Kiddushin 22a “Our Rabbis taught: “But should he say to you, I will not want to leave you לא אצא מעמך---for he loves you and your household כי אהבך ואת ביתך and is happy with you כי טוב לו עמך(Deuteronomy 15:16). He must be with [i.e., equal to] you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said: Whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself. Our Rabbis taught: “Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו; he shall go back to his own family ושב אל משפחתו and return to his ancestral holding ואל אחזת אבתיו ישוב” (Leviticus 25:41). R. Simeon said: if he is sold, are then his sons and daughters sold [why state that they go out?] ? Hence [we learn] that the master is liable for his children's keep [and at Jubilee they go out, i.e., his liability ceases]. Similarly you read: If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him [ Ex. XXI, 3]. R. Simeon said: If he is sold, is then his wife sold? Hence we learn that the master is responsible for his wife's keep. Now, both are necessary. For if we were informed [this] of his children, [I would say] that is because they cannot work for a living [lit., work and eat, the reference is to minors]; but as for his wife, who can work for a living, I would say: Let her earn her keep. While if we were informed [this] of his wife, that is because it is not meet for her to go begging; but as for his children, for whom it may be seemly to go begging [being minors, they suffer no disgrace thereby. The existence of house-to-house begging in Talmudic times follows from certain passages: Pe'ah, VIII, 7; Shab. 2a, 151b; Sifre, Deut. 116 and elsewhere. But women did not beg, and in consequence it was held more meritorious to support a needy woman than a man (Hor. III, 7; J.D. 251, 8). ], I might say: It is not so. Hence both are necessary.” Beautiful.
“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” In the parsha משפטים the master throws the out the slave by force. Wow. Is that constitutional? Is that appropriate? Is that the halacha? This sounds like Mendel Epstein et al and ORA and Agunah International. Horrible. “If his master gave him יתן לו a wife, and she had borne him children וילדה לו בנים או בנית sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall belong to the master האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדיה, and he shall leave alone והוא יצא בגפו.” (Exodus 21:4) שמות כ"א ד' אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ: תורה תמימה שמות פרשת משפטים פרק כא פסוק ד אם אדוניו וגו' - אתה אומר אם זה רשות או אינו אלא חובה, כשהוא אומר אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא הרי אם זה רשות ולא חובה) [מכילתא]: Baba Kama 28a “Come and hear: Whence is derived the ruling that in the case of a [Hebrew] bondman whose term of service, that had been extended by the boring of his ear [Ex. XXI, 6], has been terminated by the arrival of the Jubilee year [Lev. XXV, 10, and Kid. 14b, 15a] if it so happened that his master, while insisting upon him to leave, injured him by inflicting a wound upon him, there is yet exemption? We learn it from the words, “Nor may you accept ransom in lieu of flight to a city of refuge, enabling one to return to live on his land before the death of the priest” (Numbers 35:32). Implying that we should not adjudicate compensation for him that is determined to come again [as a servant]. [Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests?] We are dealing here with a case where the servant became suspected of intending to commit theft [in which case an irreparable loss is pending]. But how is it that up to that time he did not commit any theft and just at that time [i.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year] he became suspected of intending to commit theft? Up to that time he had the fear of his master upon him, whereas from that time [i.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year] he is no more subject to his master's control. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We are dealing with a bondman to whom his master assigned a Canaanite maidservant as wife [Ex. XXI, 4; Kid. 15a]: up to the expiration of the term this arrangement was lawful whereas from that time this becomes unlawful [Cf. Onkelos on Deut. XXIII, 18; hence the Master may use force to eject him].” “There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 23:18). דברים כ"ג י"ח לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: תרגום אונקלוס: לא תהי אתתא מבנת ישראל לגבר עבד ולא יסב גוברא מבני ישראל אתא אמא: Yes there is a case under Jewish law allowing force separating a man from his wife. I quote Hertz Chumash p. 306: In Jewish law, the children share the status of the mother. If the Israelite had been permitted to take them into freedom with him, it would have impaired the purity of the race, and created a body of half-castes.
“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” Allow me to explain the term in the heading fact-checking. Trump claims Biden/Harris stole the election by fraud. Fraud claim = intentional misrepresentation of facts with intention of wrongfully gaining benefits. The benefit to Biden/Harris: the Democratic election victory in the House, Senate and Executive. This is Trump’s claim with some 74 million Republican voters agree to. Trump must prove Biden/Harris and supporters intentionally misrepresented facts with the intention of gaining benefits. I have a fraud claim in Aranoff v Aranoff Ct of Appeals Mo. no. 54 and SCOTUS 20-6525. I have to prove Susan intentionally misrepresented facts with the intention of gaining benefits. Supporters of Biden/Harris worry over misrepresentation of material facts. Dr. Ford accuses Kavanaugh of gang rape; she brings no corroboration/witnesses. Trump’s 1-hour speech before the riot details what Trump is angry about. Did Trump make his case? This week’s parsha משפטים on matters of stealing such as an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment or similar. Torah thought משפטים “In all charges of misappropriation על כל דבר פשע, whether it be an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss על שור על חמור על שה על שלמה על כל אבדה whereof one alleges אשר יאמר: This is it---the case of both parties עד אלהים יבא דבר שניהם: he whom God declares guilty אשר ירשיעו אלהים shall pay double to the other ישלם שנים לרעהו.” (Exodus 22:8). שמות כ"ב ח' עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ: רש"י על כל דבר פשע - שימצא שקרן בשבועתו, שיעידו עדים שהוא עצמו גנבו, וירשיעוהו אלהים על פי העדים: אשר יאמר כי הוא זה - לפי פשוטו אשר יאמר העד כי הוא זה שנשבעת עליו הרי הוא אצלך. עד הדיינין יבא דבר שניהם ויחקרו את העדים, ואם כשרים הם וירשיעוהו לשומר זה, ישלם שנים, ואם ירשיעו את העדים, שנמצאו זוממין, ישלמו הם שנים לשומר. ורבותינו ז"ל דרשו כי הוא זה, ללמד שאין מחייבין אותו שבועה אלא אם כן הודה במקצת לומר כך וכך אני חייב לך, והמותר נגנב ממני: Beautiful. My theory. Courts could handle disputes with witnesses on each side. If no side brings witnesses the case becomes a he-said-she-said with no witnesses. Then the judges need the wisdom of King Solomon. Trump’s second impeachment --- I hope the prosecutors bring witnesses so Trump lawyers could prove lying witnesses. Netanyahu will try to prove the witnesses against him liars I say that witnesses are critical to proving an insurrection = a violent uprising against an authority or government. the insurrection was savagely put down. Witnesses that swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth (real so-called fact-checking).
“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” No. Signs are that Trump impeachment will have no witnesses testifying. Likely Trump will prevail. Yes we have videos of everything, including the Trump 1-hour speech before the riot. Signs are that Netanyahu’s trial will have many witnesses testifying to Netanyahu’s detriment. I cite Rashi on Exodus 23:2
ReplyDeleteואני אומר ליישבו על אופניו כפשוטו, כך פתרונו: לא תהיה אחרי רבים לרעת - אם ראית רשעים מטין משפט, לא תאמר הואיל ורבים הם, הנני נוטה אחריהם: ולא תענה על ריב לנטת וגו' - ואם ישאל הנדון על אותו המשפט אל תעננו על הריב דבר הנוטה אחרי אותן רבים להטות את המשפט מאמתו אלא אמור את המשפט כאשר הוא, וקולר יהא תלויל בצואר הרבים:
Torah thought on משפטים.
“But if the slave העבד declares אמר יאמר: I love my master, and my wife את אשתי, and my children את בני; I will not go free לא אצא חפשי;” (Exodus 21:5).
שמות פרשת משפטים פרק כא פסוק ה
וְאִם אָמֹר יֹאמַר הָעֶבֶד אָהַבְתִּי אֶת אֲדֹנִי אֶת אִשְׁתִּי וְאֶת בָּנָי לֹא אֵצֵא חָפְשִׁי:
רש"י את אשתי - השפחה:
Kiddushin 22a
“Our Rabbis taught: “But should he say to you, I will not want to leave you לא אצא מעמך---for he loves you and your household כי אהבך ואת ביתך and is happy with you כי טוב לו עמך(Deuteronomy 15:16). He must be with [i.e., equal to] you in food and drink, that you should not eat white bread and he black bread, you drink old wine and he new wine, you sleep on a feather bed and he on straw. Hence it was said: Whoever buys a Hebrew slave is like buying a master for himself. Our Rabbis taught: “Then he and his children with him shall be free of your authority ויצא מעמך הוא ובניו עמו; he shall go back to his own family ושב אל משפחתו and return to his ancestral holding ואל אחזת אבתיו ישוב” (Leviticus 25:41). R. Simeon said: if he is sold, are then his sons and daughters sold [why state that they go out?] ? Hence [we learn] that the master is liable for his children's keep [and at Jubilee they go out, i.e., his liability ceases]. Similarly you read: If he is married, then his wife shall go out with him [ Ex. XXI, 3]. R. Simeon said: If he is sold, is then his wife sold? Hence we learn that the master is responsible for his wife's keep. Now, both are necessary. For if we were informed [this] of his children, [I would say] that is because they cannot work for a living [lit., work and eat, the reference is to minors]; but as for his wife, who can work for a living, I would say: Let her earn her keep. While if we were informed [this] of his wife, that is because it is not meet for her to go begging; but as for his children, for whom it may be seemly to go begging [being minors, they suffer no disgrace thereby. The existence of house-to-house begging in Talmudic times follows from certain passages: Pe'ah, VIII, 7; Shab. 2a, 151b; Sifre, Deut. 116 and elsewhere. But women did not beg, and in consequence it was held more meritorious to support a needy woman than a man (Hor. III, 7; J.D. 251, 8). ], I might say: It is not so. Hence both are necessary.”
Beautiful.
“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” In the parsha משפטים the master throws the out the slave by force. Wow. Is that constitutional? Is that appropriate? Is that the halacha? This sounds like Mendel Epstein et al and ORA and Agunah International. Horrible.
ReplyDelete“If his master gave him יתן לו a wife, and she had borne him children וילדה לו בנים או בנית sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall belong to the master האשה וילדיה תהיה לאדיה, and he shall leave alone והוא יצא בגפו.” (Exodus 21:4)
שמות כ"א ד'
אִם אֲדֹנָיו יִתֶּן לוֹ אִשָּׁה וְיָלְדָה לוֹ בָנִים אוֹ בָנוֹת הָאִשָּׁה וִילָדֶיהָ תִּהְיֶה לַאדֹנֶיהָ וְהוּא יֵצֵא בְגַפּוֹ:
תורה תמימה שמות פרשת משפטים פרק כא פסוק ד
אם אדוניו וגו' - אתה אומר אם זה רשות או אינו אלא חובה, כשהוא אומר אם בגפו יבא בגפו יצא הרי אם זה רשות ולא חובה) [מכילתא]:
Baba Kama 28a
“Come and hear: Whence is derived the ruling that in the case of a [Hebrew] bondman whose term of service, that had been extended by the boring of his ear [Ex. XXI, 6], has been terminated by the arrival of the Jubilee year [Lev. XXV, 10, and Kid. 14b, 15a] if it so happened that his master, while insisting upon him to leave, injured him by inflicting a wound upon him, there is yet exemption? We learn it from the words, “Nor may you accept ransom in lieu of flight to a city of refuge, enabling one to return to live on his land before the death of the priest” (Numbers 35:32). Implying that we should not adjudicate compensation for him that is determined to come again [as a servant]. [Does not this prove that a man may take the law into his own hands for the protection of his interests?] We are dealing here with a case where the servant became suspected of intending to commit theft [in which case an irreparable loss is pending]. But how is it that up to that time he did not commit any theft and just at that time [i.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year] he became suspected of intending to commit theft? Up to that time he had the fear of his master upon him, whereas from that time [i.e., the arrival of the Jubilee year] he is no more subject to his master's control. R. Nahman b. Isaac said: We are dealing with a bondman to whom his master assigned a Canaanite maidservant as wife [Ex. XXI, 4; Kid. 15a]: up to the expiration of the term this arrangement was lawful whereas from that time this becomes unlawful [Cf. Onkelos on Deut. XXIII, 18; hence the Master may use force to eject him].”
“There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.” (Deuteronomy 23:18).
דברים כ"ג י"ח
לֹא תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל:
תרגום אונקלוס:
לא תהי אתתא מבנת ישראל לגבר עבד ולא יסב גוברא מבני ישראל אתא אמא:
Yes there is a case under Jewish law allowing force separating a man from his wife. I quote Hertz Chumash p. 306: In Jewish law, the children share the status of the mother. If the Israelite had been permitted to take them into freedom with him, it would have impaired the purity of the race, and created a body of half-castes.
“Trump impeachment: Fact-checking the Senate trial” Allow me to explain the term in the heading fact-checking. Trump claims Biden/Harris stole the election by fraud. Fraud claim = intentional misrepresentation of facts with intention of wrongfully gaining benefits. The benefit to Biden/Harris: the Democratic election victory in the House, Senate and Executive. This is Trump’s claim with some 74 million Republican voters agree to. Trump must prove Biden/Harris and supporters intentionally misrepresented facts with the intention of gaining benefits. I have a fraud claim in Aranoff v Aranoff Ct of Appeals Mo. no. 54 and SCOTUS 20-6525. I have to prove Susan intentionally misrepresented facts with the intention of gaining benefits. Supporters of Biden/Harris worry over misrepresentation of material facts. Dr. Ford accuses Kavanaugh of gang rape; she brings no corroboration/witnesses. Trump’s 1-hour speech before the riot details what Trump is angry about. Did Trump make his case?
ReplyDeleteThis week’s parsha משפטים on matters of stealing such as an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment or similar.
Torah thought משפטים
“In all charges of misappropriation על כל דבר פשע, whether it be an ox, an ass, a sheep, a garment, or any other loss על שור על חמור על שה על שלמה על כל אבדה whereof one alleges אשר יאמר: This is it---the case of both parties עד אלהים יבא דבר שניהם: he whom God declares guilty אשר ירשיעו אלהים shall pay double to the other ישלם שנים לרעהו.” (Exodus 22:8).
שמות כ"ב ח'
עַל כָּל דְּבַר פֶּשַׁע עַל שׁוֹר עַל חֲמוֹר עַל שֶׂה עַל שַׂלְמָה עַל כָּל אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ:
רש"י
על כל דבר פשע - שימצא שקרן בשבועתו, שיעידו עדים שהוא עצמו גנבו, וירשיעוהו אלהים על פי העדים:
אשר יאמר כי הוא זה - לפי פשוטו אשר יאמר העד כי הוא זה שנשבעת עליו הרי הוא אצלך. עד הדיינין יבא דבר שניהם ויחקרו את העדים, ואם כשרים הם וירשיעוהו לשומר זה, ישלם שנים, ואם ירשיעו את העדים, שנמצאו זוממין, ישלמו הם שנים לשומר. ורבותינו ז"ל דרשו כי הוא זה, ללמד שאין מחייבין אותו שבועה אלא אם כן הודה במקצת לומר כך וכך אני חייב לך, והמותר נגנב ממני:
Beautiful. My theory. Courts could handle disputes with witnesses on each side. If no side brings witnesses the case becomes a he-said-she-said with no witnesses. Then the judges need the wisdom of King Solomon. Trump’s second impeachment --- I hope the prosecutors bring witnesses so Trump lawyers could prove lying witnesses. Netanyahu will try to prove the witnesses against him liars I say that witnesses are critical to proving an insurrection = a violent uprising against an authority or government. the insurrection was savagely put down. Witnesses that swear to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth (real so-called fact-checking).