Shidduchim: Does a sexually active unmarried woman need to reveal this to the man she marries?

 Igros Moshe (OC IV #118) And as for whether you need to tell the guy that wants to marry you, of course you need to tell him, but you don't need to tell him the first time that you meet when  it is not yet known if he wants the match at all and in any case then you must not tell him then. Only after you know that he clearly wants to marry you and has already told you and spoken regarding marriage, you only need to say that it happened, when you didn't have such a serious head to withstand temptation against repeated seduction, and you immediately regretted sinning and were upset that something like this happened until he recognizes from your words that he should not be concerned that it will happen after you are married. Only then should you reveal this information since he wants you because he realizes how wonderful and pious you really are and truly believes that you won’t do it again and that you will be totally devoted to your husband and faithful to him

Shalom Bayis

 Rav Moshe used to return home everyday for a hot lunch meal.  This was his main meal of the day  prepared carefully by his wife. One day just as he arrived for the meal, the phone rang and he was distracted from the meal for a long time. His wife kept telling him to hang-up and eat his lunch but he continued speaking and thus missed his meal. After a long time, when he had finished the call he returned to the yeshiva. The students who accompanied him asked why he had skipped his lunch. He replied simply that it was an important call involving shalom bayis (domestic harmony). The students then asked, ”Why was the caller’s shalom bayis more important than his own?” He replied simply, ”In the case of the caller there was two people fighting but in his case there was only one.” 

Shaking hands with Women

 Igros Moshe (E.H. 04:032.9):Shaking hands with women as greeting. It is obviously prohibited as I have written previously (O.C. 113) because of concerns for sexual arousal and pleasure. However I wrote (E.H. 56) that if you see religious Jews who are lenient to judge them favorably and assume that they are relying on the absence of sexual arousal and pleasure but I also wrote there that it is difficult to rely on this. I don’t see any inconsistency between prohibiting shaking hands but permitting riding on buses (E.H. 2:14) since there is no affection involved there for almost everyone.

If Talmudic authority is result of acceptance - where is evidence?

from Daas Torah - translaton copyrighted

Mahretz Chayes (Toras Neviim #3 Maamar Lo Sasur): The Kesef Mishna (Mamrim 2:1) raises a very strong question against the Rambam. The Rambam says that where there is a dispute based on sevora or drasha concerning a Torah law, a later generation can reject the view of an earlier generation - even though it is not greater in wisdom and number. If so then why don’t Amoraim disagree with Tannaim and in fact we find many instances that an Amora’s view is rejected because his view differs from that stated in a Mishna or braissa. The Kesef Mishna answers, “It is possible to say that from the day that Mishna was completed it was accepted and established that later generations would not be permitted to disagree with the earlier generatons. Similarly when the Talmud was completed, no one had the right to disagree with it.” But there is no evidence in either the Talmud Bavli or Yerushalmi that there was such binding agreement. One can not find the slightest hint in the Mishna or Talmud and the Kesef Mishna’s questions are very solid… However I saw something similar in the Rambam’s Introduction to the Mishna Torah, “However all those matters that are found in the Babylonian Talmud are obligatory for all Jews and they can be forced to observe them… And all these matters were agreed to by all Jews.” We see that the Rambam also writes the reason for the obligation is that all Jews agreed to it. However I don’t know where there is evidence that such an agreement occurred.

Masa Son is promising a massive investment in Trump’s America. Don’t hold your breath

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/masa-son-is-promising-a-massive-investment-in-trump-s-america-don-t-hold-your-breath/ar-AA1w0Cnx?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=6590849fe299492db067777aa522ea6b&ei=175

On Monday, Japanese investor Masayoshi Son joined Trump to announce a $100 billion investment in US projects over the next four years, with a goal of creating 100,000 new jobs in emerging technologies, including the development of artificial intelligence. (Because what investment in 2024 isn’t tied to AI?) The planned investment will come from Son’s SoftBank Group, which, despite its name, is not a bank — more of a sprawling global tech investing company.

This is hardly the first time a president has sought to gin up economic goodwill through agreements with companies on the promise of reviving American industry. But, as Trump knows well from his first term, these sorts of arrangements are often heavy on fanfare but light on actual value.

But you get the idea. Good intentions are great, and then they often encounter economic realities.

They’re all after roughly the same thing: a spot on Trump’s “nice” list, or at least a shot at remaining off the “naughty” list for as long as possible.

Kol Isha - Parents coming to hear Children Singing?

 Igros Moshe (O.C. 01:026):Listening to a young girl singing. This that you write that it is impossible to protest that parents should not come to listen to their children singing without causing great controversy, therefore you want to know my view regarding what the halacha regarding listening to children singing?  Beis Shmuel( E.H. 21.4) explicitly states that the voice of an unmarried woman is permitted except during prayer and the Magen Avraham (E.H. 75.6) states that only the singing of a married woman is always prohibited.  This that an unmarried female is permitted is only if she is not a nida.  This is stated by the Pri Magadim and it seems that nida is viewed as erva. The Be’er Heitiv (E.H. 21.4) cites the Be’er Sheva saying that unmarried females or a widow is prohibited and only the voice of a man’s wife is permitted except during prayer. That seems to mean that even an unmarried female who is not a nida and thus disagrees with the Beis Shmuel. Thus the halacha is in accord with the greater number of those that permit and furthermore the Be’er Heitiv does not note that the Be’er Sheva disagrees which indicates he has no concern that that view is halacha.In addition the Mishna Bereura (75.17) also permits an unmarried female who is not a nida when it is not during Shema. What needs to be a point of concern is that which the Mishna Berura writes that the singing of an unmarried girl is permitted as long as there is no intent for pleasure so that it doesn’t lead to lustful thoughts. So possibly there are some who come with the intent to listen and have lustful thoughts which is prohibited. But it seems that the Misha Berura means someone who listens for lustful rasons.and we can assume here also that people are not coming to listen for lustful reasons and we don’t need to be concerned that lustful thoughts will be produced by listening to girls singing. Thus the prohibition only applies to females that are prohibited to him inherently to get any pleasure from them which excludes unmarried girls who are not nida. So even if there is concern that listening will result in lustful thoughts, this is relevant only for older girls who might become nida and not young girls. In addition there is normally no lust for sex with children and consequently looking or listening to children does not produce lustful thoughts even when done for the sake of pleasure. This is true even for girls older than 9 years. In conclusion you asked for the actual halacha and that is that it is permissible for girls singing as long as they are not more than 11 ears old. More than 11, even if it is known that they are not nida and according to the straight halacha it is possible to be lenient as I have explained, nevertheless you should be strict since it is possible for some to be nida, If there is no pressing need you should always prohibit because in these matters all who take the strict view are called holy.

What’s Behind Masayoshi Son’s $100 Billion Pledge to Donald Trump

 https://www.wsj.com/finance/softbank-ceo-trump-deal-ca0d3ab3?mod=hp_lead_pos10

Tech investing heavyweight Masayoshi Son offered a gift to President-elect Donald Trump: a pledge to spend $100 billion on artificial intelligence and related technology in the U.S.

“President Trump is a double-down president,” he said Monday, standing next to Trump at a Mar-a-Lago press conference—a reference to how his commitment was twice the $50 billion he pledged at a similar event eight years ago. 

Left unmentioned: Son, the chief executive of tech conglomerate SoftBank Group 9984 4.42%increase; green up pointing triangle, doesn’t have $100 billion. Following through will require Son to embark on some combination of a massive fundraising effort, a huge amount of new debt or selling chunks of the company’s holdings to raise cash.

Sheer stockings are modest?

  Igros Moshe (EH IV #100) Question There are people who make sure that their wives and daughters do not walk without stockings on their feet, but no one makes sure that the stockings are in such a way that it does not show the flesh. Why should seeing the flesh through stockings be permitted? We hold that all the flesh of the leg below the knee is considered nakedness. Why should it make a difference seeing it directly or through transparent stockings? We hold that nakedness in a transparent container is prohibited. Obviously if you hold like the Mishna Berura (75:02) that this area is not consider nakedness then there is no need to wear stockings at all? Answer In fact the concern in wearing stockings is for extra care because of modesty as the halacha is that the leg until the knee is not considered nakedness and the reason wearing transparent stockings is considered modesty is because in reality the threads of the stockings, even sheer ones, do not actually allow one to see the actual flesh of the leg. The proof is that when the stockings are colored white or black, one does not see the flesh of the leg. Thus it is only because the stocking are flesh colored it appears like you are seeing the flesh.Thus when wearing sheer stockings the leg is in fact covered and despite what seems to the on looker to be the leg is not the actual leg at all. So even in a situation of halachic nakedness it still would be considered covered . However then it would be prohibited because of arousing licentious  thoughts. Thus with children for which there is no hirhur, even for areas considered nakedness in adults it would be sufficient.

Elon Musk’s X Corrects MTG’s ‘Vaccines Cause Autism’ Claim

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-x-corrects-mtgs-vaccines-cause-autism-claim/

Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) took to X on Monday to falsely state that vaccines caused autism—but not without backlash.

This time, she declared unequivocally that vaccines cause autism—a claim that has been studied extensively, with no evidence to suggest that the two are connected.

“I fully believe vaccines cause Autism,“ she wrote. ”It’s another example of crimes against humanity. And innocent babies, children, and their families are the victims."

Faced with mounting public anger, a weakened Hamas starts to compromise

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2024/12/16/hamas-gaza-israel-war-ceasefire-negotiations/

With its military power depleted and its political influence on the wane, Hamas is under growing public pressure to help bring the war in Gaza to an end.

Palestinians in the besieged enclave are desperate for a ceasefire after 14 months of conflict, and many residents said they are increasingly fed up with the militant group as they struggle to survive hunger, displacement and Israeli attacks. Last week, Hamas publicly softened its negotiating position with Israel. 

Past FBI Informant Pleads Guilty To Lying About the Bidens

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/past-fbi-informant-alexander-smirnov-pleads-guilty-to-lying-about-the-bidens/

Former FBI informant Alexander Smirnov has pleaded guilty to lying about a false bribery conspiracy that was once a main point of contention against Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Smirnov’s allegation sparked widespread controversy against the two Bidens, starting the House impeachment inquiry into the president by Republicans. Smirnov, 44, pleaded guilty to four federal charges relating to the fake allegations, as well as tax evasion charges that alleged he hid millions of dollars in income, according to The Hill. He told the FBI that the head of Burisma, a energy company in Ukraine, had paid the president and his son both $5 million. The allegations were false. No proof has been released that Joe Biden accepted bribes or engaged in corruption during his time as president nor vice president and he has denied all allegations. Court documents also revealed that Smirnov said he gave “false derogatory information,” according to The Hill. Smirnov had been an informant for more than a decade, his identity was not revealed until he was indicted. Smirnov, who will be sentenced next month, agreed to a sentence of between 48 and 72 months. An attorney for Smirnov declined to comment after the hearing in Los Angeles federal court

Judge rules Trump does not have presidential immunity protections in hush money conviction

https://edition.cnn.com/2024/12/16/politics/trump-immunity-hush-money-conviction-merchan/index.html

Donald Trump’s felony conviction in the New York hush money case should not be tossed out because of the Supreme Court’s ruling on presidential immunity, Judge Juan Merchan ruled Monday.

Merchan’s decision rejected one of several avenues that Trump’s lawyers have taken to try to dismiss Trump’s May guilty verdict on 34 counts of falsifying business records. The judge did not, however, rule on a motion from Trump’s attorneys to dismiss the conviction because Trump has now been elected president.

Instead, his 41-page decision focused on the question of presidential immunity.

Merchan wrote the Supreme Court’s ruling that Trump should receive broad immunity for official acts during his time in office did not mean the conviction should be dismissed, ruling that the evidence presented by the Manhattan district attorney’s office was not related to Trump’s official conduct as president

Throwing Bread

 https://halachayomit.co.il/en/default.aspx?HalachaID=2821#:~:text=The%20Prohibition%20to%20Throw%20Food,so%20will%20ruin%20the%20food.

Although there are Poskim who justify the custom of throwing bread from one end of the table to another, one should nevertheless abstain from throwing bread completely. This applies especially to the bread eaten during the Shabbat meals upon which the head of the household recites a blessing in order to fulfill the Mitzvah. In such an instance, the Peri Megadim (Chapter 167, Eshel Avraham, Subsection 38) writes that even according to the Rashba, it will be forbidden to throw the bread, for this constitutes “degradation of a Mitzvah.” Several other Acharonim rule likewise.

Justice Department backs UN claim relief workers accused of aiding Hamas are immune

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/justice-department-backs-un-claim-relief-workers-allegedly-involved-hamas-attacks-have-diplomatic-immunity

U.S. Attorney Damian Williams of the Southern District of New York filed a brief in July supporting that argument, saying, "In light of the United Nations’ immunity, the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the United Nations."

The brief notes that "the United States acknowledges and deplores the profound losses suffered on October 7," and that "the United States takes no position on the factual allegations in the complaint."

"The United Nations is absolutely immune from suit and legal process absent an express waiver of immunity," Williams said, citing the Charter of the United Nations, to which the United States acceded in 1945, that says the U.N. "shall enjoy in the territory of each of its Members such privileges and immunities as are necessary for the fulfilment [sic] of its purposes."

March 18, 2024 Justice Ministry official: Lawsuits cannot be filed against UNRWA for October 7 events, UN institutions have immunity; Labor and Welfare Committee Chair MK Eichler: That's absurd

 https://main.knesset.gov.il/en/news/pressreleases/pages/press18324r.aspx

​​The Labor and Welfare Committee, chaired by MK Israel Eichler (United Torah Judaism), convened on Monday to begin preparation for second and third readings of a bill intended to allow victims of hostile acts to file lawsuits and receive compensatory damages from those who bear responsibility for acts of terrorism in conjunction with receiving benefits from the state. At present, according to the Benefits for Casualties of Hostile Acts Law, 1970, it is not possible to receive damages benefits under this law and also compensatory damages under another law. As a result, people harmed by hostile acts are compelled to refund to the National Insurance Institute (NII) the full amount of compensation received from the NII in order to file a suit for compensatory damages from a party that has been found to bear responsibility for the terrorist attack, such as the Palestinian Authority. Bills sponsored by MKs Sharren Haskel (New Hope—The United Right​), Sharon Nir (Yisrael Beitenu), Simcha Rothman (Religious Zionism) and additional MKs, which were merged [into a single bill], propose to allow compensation to be received from the party that caused the harm in the amount of 25% of the damages awarded to the casualties, along with receiving compensation from the state.

Daas Torah - Prohibition against clear and flesh colored stockings

שו"ת אגרות משה 
 
אבן העזר חלק ד סימן ק

ו. אם יש טעם להקפיד שילכו הבנות באנפילאות כשאין מקפידין שלא יהו דקות כך שהבשר לא יראה מתוכן.

ובהא שיש אנשים שמקפידים שלא ילכו נשותיהן ובנותיהן בלא אנפילאות על רגליהן אבל אין מקפידין שיהיו האנפילאות באופן שא"א להראות שכתר"ה הקשה דאיזה חלוק יש דאם חשיבין לערוה גם למטה מהארכובה שקורין קני"א אין מועילין כלום דערוה בעששית אסור ואם כהמ"ב שאינו בדין ערוה אין צורך אנפילאות, האמת הוא שהוא לצניעות יותר מחמת שלהלכה עד הקני"א אינו ערוה. אבל איכא גם טעם להצניעות בזה משום שבעצם אין החוטים אף מהאנפילאות הדקין שייך שיראה בשר הרגלים והראיה שכשהן צבועין לבן ושחור לא נראה בשר הרגלים ורק מחמת שצבועין בצבע כמראה הבשר לכן נמצא שבעצם הם מכוסין ולא נראין כלל רק שנדמה לאינשי כנראין, שלכן אף במקום שהוא בדין ערוה ממש נמי הא איכא חלוק מאחר דעכ"פ הערוה מכוסה אך שיש לאסור משום דאיכא הרהור עכ"פ מזה שנראין כבשר וא"כ באם הוא מקום שאינו מביא לידי הרהור כהא דלמטה מארכובה אף אם היה עכ"פ בדין ערוה לא היה שום איסור, ונוגע לדינא ממש בקטנות שליכא הרהור אך שמ"מ הוא בדין ערוה שיהיה מותר באנפילאות כאלו, וזהו אולי טעמם.

והנני ידידו 

משה פיינשטיין
=================================================
שו"ת שבט הלוי חלק א סימן א

כבוד ידידי הרב הגאון הצ' אהוב למעלה ונחמד למטה כש"ת מו"ה בנימין זאב. יעקבזון שליט"א רב פאג"י סנהדרי' יצ"ו. אחדשה"ט באהבה וכבוד.

יקרת מכתבו קבלתי ושמחתי להקשיב משלומו הטוב. ואודות שאלתו שאלת חכם בענין הנשים גם נשואות ההולכות בלי גרבים, אם יש בזה גלוי ערוה מצד הדין ואם צריך למחות.

אעבור פרשתא דא בקיצור וה' יהי' אתנו.

בברכות כ"ד ע"א אר"י טפח באשה ערוה למאי אילימא לאסתכולי והאמר ר"ש וכו' אלא באשתו ולענין ק"ש א"ר חסדא שוק באשה ערוה. ופירש"י שוק באשת איש ערוה להסתכל וכן באשתו לק"ש. ובשו"ע סימן ע"ה ס"א טפח מגולה באשה במקום שדרכה לכסותו וכו' וברמ"א וי"א דוקא באשתו אבל באשה אחרת אפילו פחות מטפח הוי ערוה. וכתב בספר משנה ברורה שם אבל פניה וידיה כפי המנהג שדרך להיות מגולה באותו מקום וכן פרסות רגל עד השוק והוא עד מקום שנקרא קני"א בל"א במקום שדרכן לילך יחף מותר לקרות כנגדן וכו' אבל זרועותיה ושוקה אפי' רגילין לילך כדרך הפרוצות אסור ע"כ, וציין שם דדבריו לקוחים מהח"א ופמ"ג.

והנה מוכח מזה דדעת הגאון מ"ב דדרך הפרוצות דהוא בכלל דת יהודית שמוציאין עבורה אשה מבעלה מעיקר הדין עפ"י המבואר כתובות ע"ב מתחיל רק מארכובה דהיינו קני"א ולמעלה ונמשך בזה אחרי החיי"א ופרמ"ג, ובמכתה"ג דבריו צ"ע, דדברי החיי"א אינם משמע כן וגם בדברי הפמ"ג צ"ע.

וז"ל החיי"א כלל ד' ס"ב כל גופה של אשה מה שדרכה להיות מכוסה נקרא ערוה וכו' וכן פרסות רגליה במקום שדרך לילך יחף מותר אבל זרועותיה ושוקה אפי' רגילין בכך כדרך "פרוצות" אסור ע"כ, הרי דלא התיר אלא פרסות רגליה, אבל לא חלק הרגל שלמעלה מן הפרסה דהיינו קנאכע"ל בל"א עד ארכובה (קני"א) דזה באמת בכלל שוק כאשר אבאר אי"ה להלן.

אלא דעיקר העתקת מ"ב בזה מהפמ"ג, וגם זה צ"ע, דז"ל הפמ"ג במ"ז סק"א והוי יודע דלשון שוק הוא מארכובה (עיין רש"י ויקרא ז' ל"ב, ובתוי"ט פ"י דחולין מ"ד וכ"פ הרמב"ם פ"ט ה"י ממעה"ק ושוק לפעמים נקרא ירך, כ"ז בפרמ"ג), ונמצא כל הרגל עד הקני"א במקום שהולכין יחף ומגולה אפשר אין חשש וכו' עכ"ל. הנה הפמ"ג כתב זה דרך אפשר והמ"ב החליט הדברים.

אמנם גם גוף דברי רבינו הפמ"ג לא זכיתי להבין מש"כ דשוק באדם מתחיל רק מארכובה דהיינו הקני"א ולמעלה והיינו משום דהבין הפמ"ג דשוק דאדם דומיא דשוק דבהמה דמבואר לענין חזה ושוק במשנה וגמרא חולין שם ובתוי"ט שם וברמב"ם הנ"ל דהוא מפרק ארכובה התחתונה ולמעלה עד הגוף ב' פרקים דהיינו פרק אמצעי מן הרגל ופרק העליון וס"ל להפמ"ג דארכובה התחתונה של בהמה כנגדה ארכובת האדם דהיינו הקני"א ורק משם ולמעלה מתחיל השוק, וזה צע"ג דהא כבר הוכיחו תוס' מנחות ל"ז ע"א ד"ה קיבורית דשוק דאדם לא הוי כשוק דבהמה, דשוק דאדם מתחיל מיד אחר הרגל התחתון לפני הארכוביא דהיינו הקני"א, וכן הוכיח הגרעק"א בתשובותיו מהדו"ת סימן כ"ח בראיות נכונות דשוק דאדם למטה מן הקני"א, וא"כ תמה אני על עצמי דמה"ת לנו לחלק בין שוק דאדם דמתניתין דאהלות פ"א שהביאו תוס' הנ"ל ועוד כ"ד דמוכח כן כמבואר בתשובת הגרעק"א לשוק של ענינינו דלימא דשוק של גלוי ערוה רק למעלה מן הארכובה, וכיון דכל חילי' דפמ"ג רק מדמיון שוק של בהמה וכבר כתבנו דאין משם ראיה, א"כ שוב הדרינן לסתם לשון שוק שבשאר מקומות שכולל נמי חלק הרגל אשר למטה מן הקני"א, ושפיר דייק החיי"א לכתוב וכן פרסות רגליה וכו', דרק זה מותר באיתגליא, וכל השאר צריך להיות מכוסה, או בבגד, או עכ"פ בגרבים.

ונראה לענ"ד ראיה לזה מלשון הב"י ממש"כ על דברי הטור בסימן ע"ה שכתב וכן אם שוקה מגולה וכו' וז"ל הב"י כלומר שאע"פ שאינו מקום צנוע באיש הוי ערוה באשה, ואי ס"ד דהיינו ממקום הברך עד הגוף, היתכן קס"ד כזאת שמקום זה לא יהיה ערוה באשה מקום שהוא המרגיל הכי גדול לערוה ורגליה יורדת מות כתיב. ותו דגם באיש מקום זה מקום צנוע הוא, כדמשמע במגילה כ"ד ע"א ע"ש רש"י ד"ה פוחח ועש"ה כ"ד ע"ב רש"י ד"ה קטן, ועש"ה בהגהות הב"ח אות ב' דמפורש כן וע"ש בטו"א ורש"ש בזה. אלא כנ"ל דהבית יוסף קרא גם לפרק שלמטה מן הארכובה שוק וזה דקמ"ל דגם זה בכלל ערוה לענין ק"ש וגלוי ערוה לענין אשת איש.

וכיו"ב מדברי הב"ח שם במה שכתב דהיה סברא מבחוץ דאין לחוש כלל לגילוי השוק וכו' ואפילו בא"א ליכא איסור להסתכל בהם (לולא דקמ"ל הטור) דמן הסתם הן מלוכלכות בטיט וצואה ולא יגיע לידי הרהור וכו' יעש"ה ופמ"ג הנ"ל ואי ס"ד דהב"ח אשוק שלמעלה מן הארכובה עד הגוף קאי, א"כ אין לך תמהון לבב גדול מזה שיעלה על לב שום טועה דיהיה מותר להסתכל בא"א בירך הסמוך למקום הגוף ממש. וגם וכי שם מן הסתם מלוכלך בטיט וכו' (והיינו מחמת מלאכה וכיו"ב כמש"כ הפמ"ג), אלא ודאי כמש"כ עפ"י תוס' מנחות הנ"ל דשוק דאדם מתחיל למעלה מרגל התחתון, ועפ"י דין צריך להיות מכוסה או בבגד או בגרבים וכיו"ב, ולא מצאתי כדי סמיכה להתיר, מאחר שבחיי"א מבואר לאיסור ובפמ"ג אינו מבואר להיתר כנ"ל. והקב"ה יצילנו משגיאות ויטהר לבנו לעבדו באמת. ידידו דוש"ת מצפה לחסדי ה'.

ועיין בלשון רשב"ם ב"ב נ"ז ע"ב ד"ה לפי, משמע קצת כדברינו, וכבר העיר בזה בתשובת צור יעקב ח"ב סי' א' בהגה בן המחבר זצ"ל, וע"ש בפנים התשובה. וכבר כתבנו דבתשובת הגרעק"א מהד"ת הכריע כדהתוס' מנחות ל"ז דיש חילוק בין שוק דאדם לבהמה והיינו לחומרא כמש"כ. .

Distorted data from Gaza harms global understanding of Israel’s actions - editorial

 https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-833444

The HJS report accuses the Hamas-controlled Gaza Health Ministry of inflating its figures by including natural deaths, combatant deaths, and even fatalities predating the war. “The Ministry of Health, operating under Hamas, has systematically inflated the death toll by failing to distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths, over-reporting fatalities among women and children, and even including individuals who died before the conflict began,” it states.

University of Michigan fires diversity administrator who said Jews are 'wealthy and privileged'

 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-833313

The University of Michigan has fired an administrator after she was accused of saying that Jewish students should not benefit from diversity programs as they are "wealthy and privileged," according to documents obtained by the New York Times on Thursday.

Polio survivor Mitch McConnell criticizes efforts to undermine vaccine

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2024/12/13/mcconnell-polio-vaccine-trump-cabinet/

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky), who battled polio as a child, warned on Friday that anyone seeking a Senate confirmation should “steer clear” of associating with any efforts to undermine public confidence in the polio vaccine.

Several people Donald Trump has tapped for high-level roles in his incoming administration have expressed vaccine skepticism, most notably Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whom the president-elect picked to lead the Department of Health and Human Services.

Kadosh (i.e., like angels) - men but not women?

Maharal (Nesiv Pirushus 1): discusses the idea of kedusha as a distancing from gashmiyus based on Yevamos (20a) where Rava says that a person should sanctify himself by restricting things where are permitted. The Maharal adds that someone who works on avoiding or minimizing gashmiyus not only has the attribute of kedusha but is called a kadosh. He notes that being a kadosh is being like an angel who has no connection to gashmiyus. Kedusha comes from  minimizing such material activities as eating or sexual involvement 

I  couldn't find the concept of kadosh applied to women but it seems exclusive to men. On these lines is the fact that a man wears a kitel on Yom Kippur to be like an angel - but not a woman because the Magen Avraham (610:10) says that women can not be like angels.

Magen Avraham[1](O.C. 610:5): To be like angels – according to this women should not wear white on Yom Kippur because they can’t be like angels as it states in Misheli (21:22) A wise man scales the city of the mighty men. [This refers to Moshe going to heaven to be with the angels] It refers to the Heaven as the  “city of the mighty men”. Thus only men are capable of being like angels

---

[1] מגן אברהם (תרי:ה): דוגמת מלאכי - ולפ"ז אין הנשים לובשין לבנים דאין יכולים להיות כמלאכים דעיר גברי' כתיב כמ"ש מט"מ גבי טבילה ומ"מ הקיט"ל יכולים ללבוש שיכנע לבם, אפי' מי שלובש שק מחמת תשובה אסור ללבשו ביה"כ (ס"ח תרט"ו ר"ש הלוי סימן ו'), איתא בילקוט שופטים דף ט' ע"א לעשות פתילות עבות בבה"כ

Vayikra Rabbah[1](31:5): R. Joshua of Siknin in the name of R. Aha cited, A wise man scaleth the city of the mighty--gibborim (Prov. XXI, 22).1 The written form is gebarim’ (men), for all of them are males; there are no females among them.

---

[1] ויקרא פרשה (לא:ה): ר' יהושע דסכנין בשם ר' אחא אמר (משלי כא) עיר גבורים עלה חכם גברים כתיב שכלם גברים ואין בהם

 It seems clear from Bereishis (6:2) which discusses fallen angels as being male and sexually active - that fallen angels are men. So just as men can elevate themselves to be a kadosh i.e., angel, Angels can degrade themselves to be men.

This seems rather strange to me since I don't know of any other mida which doesn't apply both to men and women. It points to a very fundamental concern when trying to understand the distinction between  men and women.

I would appreciate any references to this matter - either in showing me that being a kadosh applies also to women or in showing me sources that reinforce this distinction. Alternative showing that women can reach the level of angels or show additional sources that they can't.

Will women's subordinate status be changed in Messianic Era?

Jewish Action Magazine review of The Moon’s Lost Light by Devorah Heshelis  -  Rabbi Mayer Twersky

Questions regarding the role and place of women within Judaism have spawned an ever-burgeoning literature. The questions themselves are no longer new. Are women equal to men in the eyes of the Torah? Why are there constraints regarding teaching Torah to women? Et cetera. Answers and perspectives, learned and insightful, have been offered from traditional points of view. In fact, the contributions, both books and articles, to this literature have been so plentiful and prolific that one would doubt if it were possible to offer a totally new, yet traditional perspective.

Mrs. Devorah Heshelis (which is a pen name) has done just that. Her monograph, The Moon’s Lost Light, is a remarkably creative and extremely erudite contribution to the Torah-and-women literature. Her monograph is important and delightful–important because it provides a comprehensive, conceptual framework for understanding the Torah’s treatment of women and delightful because of the intellectual excitement which her conceptual breakthrough generates.

Hitherto traditionalists have, in essence, argued as follows. Women are endowed with kedushat Yisrael (sanctity) equal to that of men.1 Moreover, the halachah of matrilineal descent and women’s primary role in childrearing mean that women guarantee Jewish continuity, et cetera. These representative facts simply belie the allegations of disparagement of women. Indubitably, these points are true and need to be emphatically asserted. Nevertheless, without doubting these truths, some people feel that while erroneous conclusions have been rebutted, some of the especially sensitive, crucial questions raised have not been adequately addressed.

The Moon’s Lost Light focuses upon such questions. The following are two of the questions Mrs. Heshelis undertakes to answer: “Why do women sometimes appear to have a secondary position in Judaism? Why are there some rabbinical descriptions of women that don’t seem to correspond to the reality we know?”2

[...] Man and woman were originally created equal, but because Chava (whose soul contained the souls of all future women3) led Adam to sin, woman’s “light” (i.e., abstract intelligence, capacity for studying Torah) was subsequently diminished. There were social and emotional changes as well. Because Chava abused her influence over Adam and led him to sin, she was punished measure for measure with “he shall rule over you.”4 This accounts for women’s secondary position in Judaism.

These punitive measures, however, were not ordained for all eternity. One aspect of the ultimate redemption, as prophesied by Yirmiyahu HaNavi,5 is that “nekeivah tesoveiv gever,” a female will turn into a man. That is, women will become equal with men (reversing the curse of “he shall rule over you”) and also “women will once again have [abstract] perception equal to that of men.”6 In particular, according to Targum Yonatan ben Uziel, nekeivah tesoveiv gever means that women will utilize their newly regained “light” to study Torah. Moreover, according to the teaching of the Gaon of Vilna, as recorded in Kol HaTor, starting with the year 5500 from Creation (1740 C.E.), the powers of redemption would begin to enter the world. “Everything that will be in the full redemption enters the world … little by little in this period.”7 Accordingly, in the modern era women have incrementally begun to enjoy equality and, in ever increasing numbers, demonstrate a high degree of abstract intelligence. Thus in our day, we have witnessed the initial, partial fulfillment of nekeivah tesoveiv gever, as interpreted by Yonatan ben Uziel. Women are studying Torah.

Mrs. Heshelis’ historical approach suggests that women are somewhat different today than they were throughout pre-modern history. This accounts for the discrepancy between the rabbinic depictions of women and the contemporary reality of women. The descriptions found in the Talmud were accurate at that time. We observe increasing numbers of women whose intellectual profile differs because “when the power of nekeivah tesoveiv gever started affecting the world, woman’s abstract abilities began to change.”8

The Legitimacy of Questions

Before we reflect upon the answers put forward by Mrs. Heshelis, we must first consider the questions that prompted her to write the monograph. Are the questions themselves both accurate and legitimate?

The first question posed is “Why do women sometimes appear to have a secondary position in Judaism?”9 I am uncomfortable with the description of women’s “secondary position.”10 Our gedolim have affirmed the axiological, ontological equality (i.e., equality of value) of men and women within Yahadut.11 “Secondary,” however, is easily misconstrued as to deny such equality. The question, if it is to be asked, should be re-worded to focus upon women’s supporting role.

But is either form of the question–secondary or supporting–legitimate? After all, not every question is legitimate. Some questions surpass the limitations of the human intellect. In this context it is worth quoting the timeless words of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi.12 The question he addresses is why was Torah not given to all of mankind? Would not that have been more appropriate for the Divine wisdom? In other words, why did HaKadosh Baruch Hu single out the Jewish people from the rest of humanity? Rabbi Yehudah Halevi’s response: “And would it not have been more appropriate that all animals be created as humans?” In other words, why did HaKadosh Baruch Hu single out human beings by endowing them with intelligence and free will? Clearly such questions can never be answered, and, accordingly, they are neither meaningful nor legitimate. There are fundamental facts and axioms within HaKadosh Baruch Hu’s creation. Man is able to accomplish so much with two hands. Imagine how much he would be able to do if he had been created with three hands! The response is kach gazra chachmato, this is what Hashem in His inscrutable wisdom decreed. We cannot question the basic facts of Hashem’s world. This, in essence, is Rabbi Yehudah Halevi’s response.[...]

Thus the legitimacy and appropriateness of the author’s first question is itself open to question. Moreover, ultimately Mrs. Heshelis must also invoke this teaching of Rabbi Yehudah Halevi. In her words, “The principle of nekeivah tesoveiv gever does not mean that women will become altogether identical with men … men and women will each have primary virtues, while also having abilities on the other side.”13 So writes Mrs. Heshelis, and, undoubtedly, she is absolutely correct. But why will they not be identical? The response, of course, is kach gazra chachmato. The initial “why” question–“Why do women sometimes appear to have a secondary position [supporting role] in Judaism?”–warrants a similar response.14[...]

The author’s second question, which focuses on the disparity between rabbinic descriptions and contemporary impressions of women, raises a different methodological issue. The question axiomatically assumes that not only rabbinic statements but also our impressions are sources of truth. Clearly if our impressions have no epistemological validity, the second question simply disappears. Thus the methodological issue is, are our impressions (especially when apparently in conflict with the words of our Sages) to be regarded as a source of truth or knowledge?

The answer from a Torah perspective, I believe, is “yes, but….” Rabbi Sa’adiah Gaon substantiates the “yes” component of the response. He writes in the introduction (par. 5) to his Emunot VeDeot that both sensory perceptions as well as logical inferences from these perceptions are sources of truth. We observe increasing numbers of women succeeding and even excelling in pursuits that require a high degree of abstract intelligence. Ergo, we infer that these women possess keen abstract intelligence. According to Rabbi Sa’adiah Gaon, both links in the chain–our perception as well as our inference–are epistemologically valid. Thus we know that women possess a high degree of abstract intelligence, yet our Sages seem to indicate otherwise. Accordingly, Mrs. Heshelis’ second question is entirely legitimate.[...]

The Moon’s Lost Light

Following are a few observations concerning the central thesis of The Moon’s Lost Light. The Talmud17 enumerates ten curses imposed on Chava; the loss of abstract intelligence is not included. Mrs. Heshelis, of course, does provide sources from Kabbalah to document this loss in the aftermath of the sin. Nevertheless the question is worth pondering: Why is this curse omitted from the Talmudic list? Does its omission preclude from a Talmudic perspective Mrs. Heshelis’ approach or is this simply an instance of tanna vesheyer,18 our rabbis not always intending to provide an exhaustive list?

Though the aforementioned Talmudic passage is inconclusive, three of the greatest medieval Talmudists–Ra’avad, Rashba and Rabbeinu Ya’akov Ba’al Haturim–do not subscribe to elements of Mrs. Heshelis’ approach. Mrs. Heshelis describes the partnership between Adam and Chava before their sin as follows. “There was wisdom that Adam, representing intellectual knowledge, perceived first and then passed on to Chava, who then absorbed this wisdom into her heart, adding her emotional understanding to it.”19 Woman’s supporting role, according to Mrs. Heshelis, emerges only in the aftermath of the sin.20 This appears to be at odds with the depiction of Creation provided by the aforementioned sages.21 In his introduction to his classic Ba’alei Hanefesh, Ra’avad states that Hashem’s original, ideal thought (bemetziut hamachashavah hakadmonit . . . ra’ah betovat ha’adam), which he implemented, was to create woman from man’s side (unlike all other species where male and female were created individually) so that she would have a natural affinity for her supporting role. (In the animal kingdom the female does not adopt such a role.) Similarly, in a responsum22 Rasba explains that the ideal plan for Creation was to create woman from man to signify her supporting role. He also approvingly cites Ra’avad’s explanation.23 Rabbeinu Ya’akov Ba’al Haturim, in his introduction to Even Haezer, also adopts Ra’avad’s explanation.24

Both Ra’avad and Rashba are interpreting Hashem’s “original thought” as to the ideal mode of creating man and woman. Thus both Ra’avad and Rashba indicate that woman’s supporting role was part of Hashem’s original plan, and was not imposed as punishment for Chava’s sin.25

On the other hand, in addition to the sources that Mrs. Heshelis cites, there are also other sources that buttress elements of her approach. One crucial element of Mrs. Heshelis’ approach is that “man and woman were originally created equal, but that woman’s ‘light’ was subsequently lessened.” 26 The Vilna Gaon explicitly says this.27 “Initially [Adam] called her ishah ‘because she was taken from ish’ to assist him in intellectual pursuits [muskalot], and the two of them were equal . . . . But after the sin she does not desire intellectual pursuits . . . .”

Another crucial element is the interpretation of nekeivah tesoveiv gever, that “a female will turn into a man,” meaning that women will then have “male capabilities and privileges.”28 Rabbi Yechiel Michel Zilber, building upon the Chatam Sofer, develops this very idea; he, however, interprets it as a purely futuristic prophecy, with no bearing on this world’s realities or developments.29

The time frame for nekeivah tesoveiv gever, women regaining intellectual, social and economic parity with men, is absolutely vital to Mrs. Heshelis’ thesis. The author herself, displaying the erudition and intellectual honesty which characterize her monograph, cites the Ma’or VeShemesh and Kli Yakar, whose time frame differs from hers. Ma’or VeShemesh says that nekeivah tesoveiv gever will happen only after the complete rectification of the world, while Kli Yakar says that this transformation will happen only after the revival of the dead. As noted above, Rabbi Zilber also interprets nekeivah tesoveiv gever as a purely futuristic prophecy. Mrs. Heshelis, however, suggests that, according to Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel, the prophecy of nekeivah tesoveiv gever is linked to the ingathering of the exiles to the land of Israel. Since the ingathering is already happening incrementally, the prophecy of nekeivah tesoveiv gever is also gradually materializing. Once again the argument is enticing and plausible, but questionable. As noted by Mrs. Heshelis, Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel himself does not give any time frame. Mrs. Heshelis, based upon the context of chapter 31 in Yirmiyahu where nekeivah tesoveiv gever appears, is arguing ex silentio that Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel accepts an earlier time frame, which is linked to the ingathering of exiles. She may be correct. But arguments ex silentio are often questionable. Specifically, in this instance, the context of chapter 31 did not preclude the views of Ma’or VeShemesh and Kli Yakar. Thus the context certainly does not indicate that Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel disagrees with them. Moreover, even if Rabbi Yonatan ben Uziel’s time frame for nekeivah tesoveiv gever is linked to the ingathering of the exiles, perhaps this means the ingathering of all the exiles. As this has certainly not yet transpired, we would not be witnessing the beginning of the fulfillment of that prophecy.30

Mrs. Heshelis’ approach rests upon an assumption. Women have changed. In the second half of the sixth millennium there are more women who possess a high degree of abstract intelligence than at any other time in history. This is, prima facie, a reasonable assumption. It provides a very cogent explanation for the dissatisfaction that some contemporary women feel with a purely domestic role. Nonetheless, given the dearth of historical data, it does not seem possible to document or otherwise verify that there has been a change. Mrs. Heshelis’ assumption is entirely reasonable, but it is important to realize that it is, after all, only an assumption.31

Mrs. Heshelis maintains that the descriptions of women found in the Talmud were accurate at that time, but were never intended for our era, when the powers of redemption have started entering the world.32 This is definitely a plausible interpretation. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the sources themselves, 33 which contain these descriptions, do not hint at any such caveat.

Relativism

Mrs. Heshelis’ approach is very effective in harmonizing our impressions with our Sages’ pronouncements. But, at first glance, it also seems potentially troubling. There are immutable34 halachot predicated upon the curses imposed upon Chava. “Rav Yehoshua son of Levi says, ‘A man is obligated to consort with his wife before embarking on a journey [as it is written] “and your craving shall be for your husband”–this teaches that a woman craves for her husband when he embarks on a journey.’”35 In several places36 the Gemara articulates a chazakah, presumption, about women’s attitude to marriage. “It is better to live as two together than to live alone.” Based upon this chazakah, we assume that a woman is very eager to marry and remain married (more so than a man). This chazakah has far-reaching, halachic repercussions. For example, because of this chazakah, “a divorce, even in a situation of conflict, is deemed disadvantageous to her, and if granted through an unauthorized third party the divorce does not take effect.”37 Rabbi Yosef Dov Soloveitchik’s emphatic words in identifying the source of the chazakah are especially relevant to our discussion:

Not only the halachot but also the chazakot which chachmei Chazal have introduced are indestructible. We must not tamper, not only with the halachot, but even with the chazakot, for the chazakot of which Chazal spoke rest not upon transient psychological behavioral patterns, but upon permanent ontological principles rooted in the very depth of the human personality, which are as changeless as the heavens above. Let us take for example the chazakah that I was told about: the chazakah “It is better to live as two together than to live alone” has absolutely nothing to do with the social and political status of women in antiquity. This chazakah is based not upon sociological factors, but upon a verse in Bereishit–“I will greatly multiply your pain and your travail; in pain you shall bring forth children, and your desire shall be to your husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is a metaphysical curse rooted in the feminine personality; she suffers incomparably more than the male who is in solitude. Solitude to the male is not as terrible an experience, as horrifying an experience, as is solitude to the woman. And this will not change kemei hashamayim al ha’aretz [forever]. This is not a psychological fact; it is an existential fact, which is due not to the inferior status of the woman, but rather to the difference, the basic distinction between the female personality and the male personality. . . She was burdened by the Almighty, after she violated the first [law].” 38

Thus, according to the Rav, halachot, by definition immutable, are rooted in the curse imposed upon Chava.

Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk, in his magisterial Meshech Chachmah,39 also invokes this chazakah in explaining women’s timeless exemption from the commandment of procreation.

A crucial question now emerges. Can it possibly be true that Chava’s curses have begun to ameliorate and, accordingly, women are different? Can this be reconciled with the fact that immutable halachot are predicated upon these curses? The author is appropriately very sensitive to these questions;40 in essence, she unequivocally responds that the partial changes in women’s reality in the pre-messianic period do not countenance changes in halachah. In other words, it is Hashem’s judgment that the incremental changes that occur in the pre-messianic period are not significant enough to warrant any change in halachah. Everything remains unaltered until the final redemption is complete. Moreover, our Sages also anticipated these changes. “They were simply describing the situation as it existed throughout most of world history, before the powers of redemption started entering the world.”41 [...]

The Moon’s Lost Light is an excitingly original and remarkably erudite monograph. The handful of critical points and differing perspectives contained within this review do not, individually or collectively, refute the author’s essential thesis and historical framework. They do, however, indicate that the author’s approach, though suggestive and enticing, is neither definitive nor exclusionary.60 Her approach clearly cannot lay claim to a consensus omnium. On some points, there are clearly contrary views. On the other hand, her monograph, even after scrutiny, remains unquestionably exciting, valid and important. I find myself in agreement with Rabbi Zev Leff’s comment in his approbation, “This [The Moon’s Lost Light] is definitely one valid Torah perspective on this [women’s] complex issue.”61[...]

China Comes Out Swinging as Trump Trade War Looms

 https://www.wsj.com/world/china/china-us-trump-trade-war-retaliation-70523b7c?mod=hp_lead_pos10

Beyond legal maneuvers, China is turning to other sources of asymmetric strength to strike back at the U.S., such as its advantage in the supply chain for drones and the production of certain critical minerals that play a key role in semiconductors, batteries and defense equipment.

12-year-old murdered in shooting attack in Gush Etzion, manhunt for the terrorist

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/400611

12-year-old boy murdered, two people moderately injured, and two lightly injured as terrorist opens fire on a bus near the Al-Khader Junction, before fleeing the scene. Security forces are searching for him.

How Tulsi Gabbard Sees the World

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/tulsi-gabbard-director-of-national-intelligence-donald-trump-foreign-policy-syria-israel-iran-b37aa3de

Are liberals still in their McCarthyite phase? The ugly criticism of Tulsi Gabbard as a “likely Russian asset” (Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz) might convince Trump supporters that she is being maligned, as President Trump was, because she’s on board with his agenda.

The truth, which has Republican Senators concerned, is the opposite: Ms. Gabbard is on ample record as a dogmatic opponent of the policies that made Mr. Trump’s first-term foreign policy a success and that Democrats resisted. The former Democrat would be a risky fit as director of national intelligence (DNI).

CIA analyst accused of leaking Israeli plan to attack Iran ordered held pending trial

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/cia-analyst-accused-of-leaking-israeli-plan-to-attack-iran-ordered-held-pending-trial/

In court papers, the government said the leak caused Israel to delay its attack plans. Edwards said the volatile nature of the Middle East made the leak exceptionally dangerous.

“It is hard to overstate what other circumstances present graver risks of danger to human life than unilaterally deciding to transmitting information related to plans for kinetic military action between two countries,” prosecutors wrote in court papers.

The Jewish Ethicist: Death is Different

 https://aish.com/48894142/

In 1981, Rabbi Moshe Feinstein, the most outstanding rabbinical authority in the United States at that time, was asked by the Governor of New York (Hugh Carey) to present the Orthodox Jewish approach to capital punishment, which was then (as ever) a controversial topic in the state. In his answer (volume II of Choshen Mishpat number 68), Rav Moshe constantly emphasizes not the underlying liability to capital punishment but rather the many different practical obstacles that the Torah justice system, as explained in the Talmud, places in the way of actual execution of this punishment.