the vance zelenskyy trump confrontation analysed

Implications of Trump's altercation with Zelenskyy

Israel halts humanitarian aid to Gaza

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/404721

Israel's political echelon decided this morning (Sunday) to halt the transfer of humanitarian aid to the Gaza Strip after the first phase of the ceasefire concluded overnight.

The decision to halt the transfer of humanitarian aid comes in the wake of the Prime Minister's Office's announcement last night that Israel is prepared to extend the ceasefire in accordance with the outline proposed by US President Donald Trump's envoy Steve Witkoff.

"With the conclusion of the first stage of the hostages deal and in light of Hamas's refusal to accept the Witkoff framework for the continuation of the talks, to which Israel has agreed, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has decided that, as of this morning, the entry of all goods and supplies to the Gaza Strip will be halted," the Prime Minister's Office stated,

"Israel will not allow a ceasefire without the release of our hostages. If Hamas persists in its refusal, there will be additional consequences."

Why Europe Can't Defend Itself Without Donald Trump

 https://www.newsweek.com/europe-defense-spending-military-nato-donald-trump-2037104

There were no U.S. forces taking part in NATO's biggest exercises this year. This may have always been the plan, but European nations going it alone on Ukraine's doorstep took on a fresh significance as U.S. President Donald Trump and his administration rewrote Washington's relationship with the continent.

Decades of sidelining defense spending after the end of the Cold War has allowed European countries to maintain prized social welfare systems, but has also left them with yawning capability gaps on defense and a deep reliance on the U.S. that has become increasingly unpalatable to the White House. There is no shying away from this from European officials, nor a desire to—there is a universal acceptance, privately and publicly, that the continent has been lamentably lax.

Despite alarm bells ringing for years, and even more loudly since Russia's invasion of Ukraine in 2022, the continent's leaders have still struggled to summon the political clout to significantly boost military spending. For most Western European members, the threat is geographically too far away—it is hard to make a convincing case to budget more for militaries when that could mean cuts to sectors such as health care, or further tax increases in what are already some of the world's most heavily taxed countries.

Trump humiliated again on the world stage by British PM Starmer after France's Macron

Trump’s style of petty domination was in full display with Zelenskyy

 https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/01/trumps-style-of-petty-domination-was-in-full-display-with-zelenskyy

The last time Donald Trump did this, it was in secret, and he got impeached over it. In 2019, Donald Trump, on a phone call with Volodymyr Zelenskyy, demanded that the Ukrainian president produce – or fabricate – evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden, the son of Trump’s eventual opponent in the 2020 election, in exchange for continued US military aide.

His name was in a child abuse diary - now his family listen to 'vile' testimony

 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ce34v17dw53o

But most difficult for Mauricette and Roland was the much-awaited testimony of Marie-France L., Le Scouarnec's ex-wife.

It has been alleged that she was at the centre of the omerta that reigned in the Le Scouarnec family, as she was repeatedly made aware of her husband's obsession with children but did nothing to stop it.

Many lawyers and plaintiffs now believe she could have spared hundreds of children from being abused. Le Scouarnec's brother - who was also heard this week - openly wondered whether she had been too enamoured by the lifestyle provided by her husband's salary to speak out.

Snatching minerals from other countries is not a smart strategy

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/01/trump-minerals-ukraine/ 

It was in the 19th century that the United States started grabbing territory to exploit natural resources. The Guano Islands Act of 1856 enabled the seizure of unclaimed islands rich in the sought-after fertilizer. Ultimately, the United States annexed nearly 100 of these islands in the Pacific and the Caribbean, according to historian Daniel Immerwahr (and some of them were reconfigured to host airfields and military bases in the post-guano years).

President Donald Trump apparently likes the strategy. His gambit to take control of Ukraine’s deposits of lithium, graphite, cobalt, rare metals and so forth — after calling for buying Greenland and taking over Canada, in part to nab their vast troves of critical minerals — suggests that he is fashioning a 19th-century strategy to work in the 21st.

Trump, Vance attack on Zelenskyy angers many. But Russians and (some) Republicans love it.

 https://www.politico.com/news/2025/02/28/trump-vance-zelenskyy-reactions-00206834

At the State Department, which is already reeling from the specter of Trump administration plans to shrink the U.S. diplomatic footprint, staff expressed shock that Trump would treat another country’s leader so dismissively.

“This guy isn’t just trying to save his country — he’s the finger in the dike for the rest of Europe,” one State Department official said of Zelenskyy. “First, we extort him, then we intentionally try to embarrass him.”

The fracas appeared to delight Moscow.

Dmitry Medvedev, a former Russian president who often acts as a Kremlin attack dog, wrote on social media of Zelenskyy: “The insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.” Maria Zakharova, the Russian foreign ministry spokesperson said on a live streamed broadcast: “Zelenskyy is biting the hand that fed him.”

Murkowski slams Trump administration over Russia-Ukraine war stance: ‘Sick to my stomach’

 https://thehill.com/policy/international/5171214-murkowski-slams-trump-administration-over-russia-ukraine-war-stance-sick-to-my-stomach/

Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski (Alaska) condemned the Trump administration over the recent fallout with Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky during Friday’s Oval Office meeting broadcasted by the American press. 

Her stance, notable from a Republican, echoes that of many foreign leaders who labeled the meeting a stark sever in American values, including the country’s tradition of fighting for democracy across the globe. 

Oct. 7 Adds to Long History of Spies Missing the Big Picture

 https://www.wsj.com/world/oct-7-adds-to-long-history-of-spies-missing-the-big-picture-48e5e621?mod=hp_lead_pos4

Well before Hamas launched its Oct. 7, 2023, attacks, Israel’s military had plenty of evidence that something was brewing.  

Israel had been in possession of a secret Hamas plan for a mass invasion for more than a year. Soldiers on the border of Gaza had observed Hamas practicing raids on Israeli military bases and civilian communities for weeks. And the country’s security chiefs had been warning that months of contentious internal debate and protests over political issues had left Israel vulnerable.

Putin Wins the Trump-Zelensky Oval Office Spectacle

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/putin-wins-the-trump-zelensky-oval-office-spectacle-e23e9b21?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Toward the end of his on-camera, Oval Office brawl with Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky on Friday, President Trump quipped that it was “great television.” He’s right about that. But the point of the meeting was supposed to be progress toward an honorable peace for Ukraine, and in the event the winner was Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

But then the meeting, in front of the world, descended into recriminations. The nose dive began with an odd interjection from Vice President JD Vance, who appeared to be defending Mr. Trump’s diplomacy, which Mr. Zelensky hadn’t challenged. Mr. Zelensky rehearsed the many peace agreements Mr. Putin has shredded and essentially asked Mr. Vance what would be different this time.

Western allies rally around Zelensky after Trump spat deepens rift with Europe

 https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/28/europe/western-allies-zelensky-trump-hnk-intl/index.html

A notable exception to the wave of European solidarity was Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban, a far-right populist and Trump ally, who took to X to stand with the US president.

“Strong men make peace, weak men make war,” Orban wrote. “Today President (Trump) stood bravely for peace. Even if it was difficult for many to digest. Thank you, Mr. President!”

The tense exchange with Trump boosted Zelensky’s backing among many at home, with Ukraine’s lawmakers rallying behind Kyiv’s leader.

Republicans Upset!?

Putin will keep his word to me"

Questions I - what? vs why? vs silence?

I would like to start a discussion of the nature and validity of questions in the Orthodox world. This is a spin-off of the discussion regarding R' Tropper and R' Slifkin in the comments section. I think it deserves a separate post. Let me start by stating that forty years when I first met Rav Shlomo Freifeld. I asked him some fundamental questions. His response was, "These are good questions, it is important to ask questions. But you should know that probably all of the questions you will ask have already been asked by our sages and discussed. But you need to be patient. We will eventually get to your questions." It is one of the ironies of life that Reb Shlomo never did answer these questions - though we talked for many hours and I spent much time with him. One of the reasons for my sefer Daas Torah has been my own efforts to answer these questions. Reb Shlomo himself had many questions. He would raise questions in discussion or at the Shabbos table - but often there was no answer. He had an extensive library of English books which included philosophy and novels. He even had me take out various philosophy books from the Brooklyn College library for him to read. However he never articulated answers to fundamental questions. He served primarily to validate the enterprise of searching and questioning. Once he approached me for a favor. "I just got a donation of a set of Encyclopedia Judaic on the condition that it be used by the yeshiva. It is full of kefira so I can't let it be used freely. Would you please use it so that I can fulfill the conditions?" He often talked about the freshness of a child's curiosity and the unfortunate stagnation that happens when a person grows up and "knows" the answers A year after his petira, I called up his son-in-law - the present rosh hayeshiva - to ask what Reb Shlomo held regarding asking questions or discussing topics that might cause religious doubt. He responded, "I never discussed these type of hashkofa questions with him. The only one who mights have discussed these type of issues with him was my wife." As far as I know there was no yerusha concerning Reb Shlomo's comfortable open mindedness. There is a very profound statement by one of the most famous heretics - Spinoza. He asked, "What is an answer?" As any parent knows there is a certain age that child ask "why?" to anything and everything. What is an answer? Spinoza said that an answer is simply that which takes away the urge to ask another question! It was not just Rabbi Freifeld and Rav Hutner who had an insatiable curiosity about everything. Soon after the petira of the Lubavitcher Rebbe I was talking with Rav Yaakov Goldberg - the head of the Lubavitch baal teshuva yeshiva Hadar HaTorah - concerning some of these things. He said, "You are too late! All these fundamental questions were of great interest to the Lubavicher Rebbe. There is no one today." Finally let me mention my experience with writing and publishing my sefer Daas Torah. When I first started working on it I consulted a famous rabbi connected with Artscroll. He told me point blank - "you are a danger to klall Yisroel. You are going to cause confusion and doubt by telling people that there are multiple ways of understanding fundamental hashkofa issues." I consulted with Rav Bulman. His response was, "You will never get away with presenting multiple views. The yeshiva world holds that there is one right answer. You are following in the approach of Rav Tzadok and Rav Kook. But I want to buy the first copy. You hear I don't want a present I want to buy the first copy." I talked to Rav Yaakov Weinberg - rosh hayeshiva of Ner Israel in Baltimore. We talked for an hour and he repeatedly said. "We encourage questions from our talmidim in the yeshiva. There is nothing that you can't ask. However regarding writing - you can write about anything except the dispute between the chassidim and the Gra." He was also astonished when I mentioned Rav Dessler's view of eilu v'eilu - that it is simply a manifestation of different perspectives but all competing view of our sages are fundamentally in agreement. "You can't tell me that an intelligent person can think this way! If so words have no meaning." I then went to Rav Eliashiv - he told me simply that there is no problem of raising issues and presenting multiple alternatives - as long as the source material was from mainstream accepted views. He did not see a problem "as long as I did not present sources from the Cairo Geniza." In regards to the issue of confusion - he said simply "let them ask their rebbes and rosh yeshiva." You don't avoid teaching Torah because it raises questions." Rav Solveitchik on the other hand was not an intellectual i.e., he was not an open ended thinker - he was a Brisker. One of his students told me that one winter they were involved in a complex sugya when someone raised a question which was not discussed in any of the commentaries. It greatly upset Rav Solveitchik because "there is no valid question which is not discussed in the meforshim." The students were in the middle of their summer break when they received a call that Rav Soloveitchik wanted them to come to a special shiur. At the shiur he announced that he had found the solution to why no one talked about the question. The question was based on a mistaken girsa. He repeated again, "If it is a valid question you will find it discussed in the meforshim. If it isn't discussed that indicates it is not a valid question." In the next post I will cite some of the fundamental texts dealing with the validity of questions - in particular those that don't have clear definitive answers. One final caution - the issue of asking questions and being open-minded exists in equal measure in the non-Orthodox world - both secular and religious. It would be helpful if you read the classic work "Teaching as a subversive activity." It contrasts the view of secular education as process of socialization versus learning how to think clearly.

Questions II Answering heretics

Rav Chaim Brisker[i](MeAtiki Shemuah): In truth the entire basis of our permission to ask questions and analyze the Torah is because the Torah was given in this manner that questioning and analysis are critical to comprehending the depths of the Torah. Therefore, the question is itself made part of the Torah. Consequently, if a question is valid then both the question and the answer are inherently part of the Torah itself.

---

[i] מעתיקי שמועה בריסק (חלק ב' פרשת העקידה עמוד קלב):, כי באמת כל מה שיש לנו רשות להקשות ולפלפל בתורה, הוא משום דהתורה ניתנה באופן הזה שיפלפל האדם בתורה ויקשה קושיות עד אשר מבין עומק הדברים, והקושיא נעשית גם כן חלק מהתורה, ואם זהו קושיא שניתנה לשאול אז בין הקושיא ובין התירוץ נעשה תורה והיו חלק מעצם התורה...

Rav Chaim Voloshner[i](Ruach Chaim 1:4): … It is prohibited for a student to accept the words of his teacher if he has questions about them. Furthermore sometimes the truth is with the student and not the teacher.” Avos[ii](1:4) says, One should sit in the dust at the feet of one’s teachers and drink with unquenchable thirst what they say. “The word for sitting - avek - can also mean struggle or warfare. That is because this is an obligatory struggle. The holy rabbis who have composed the books we study have in fact given us permission to struggle and to fight over their words and to answer the difficulties they raise. Therefore, we have the right to question what they say and not to blindly accept their words - but one must love the truth…. Since ascertaining the truth is the prime concern - we must be very careful not to be conceited and egotistical in the discussions and to imagine that we are as great as the teacher or author with whom we are disagreeing. We should be aware in our hearts that we might simply be misunderstanding their words. Therefore we must always be very humble. We must have the attitude, ‘I am not worthy to argue but this is Torah and I must know the correct answer’. Furthermore, the Mishna states that the struggle is conditional on being ‘in the dust at their feet’ which means we must be humble and submissive and figuratively sit on the ground before them in these discussions.

---

[i] רוח חיים (משנה א:ד) ואסור לו לתלמיד לקבל דברי רבו כשיש לו קושיות עליהם. ולפעמים האמת עם התלמיד וכמו שעץ קטן מלדיק את הגדול. וז"ש יהי ביתך בית ועד להחכמים והוי מתאבק, מלשון ויאבק איש עמו שהוא ענין התאבקות מלחמה. כי מלחמת מצוה היא, וכן אנו נגד רבותינו הקדושים אשר בארץ ונשמתם בשמי מרום המחברים המפורסמים, וספריהם אתנו. וניתן לנו רשות להתאבק וללחום בדבריהם ולתרץ קושיתם, ולא לישא פני איש רק לאהוב האמת.

...יזהר בנפשו מלדבר בגאוה וגודל לבב באשר מצא מקום לחלוק וידמה כל גדול הוא כרבו או כמחבר הספר אשר הוא משיג עליו, וידע בלבבו כי כמה פעמים לא יבין דבריו וכוונתו, ולכן יהיה בענווה יתירה. באמרו אם איני כדאי, אך תורה היא וכו'. וז"ש הוי מתאבק כנ"ל, אם בתנאי 'באפר רגליהם', ר"ל בענוה והכנעה לדון לפניהם בקרקע.

[ii] משנה (אבות א:ד) יוסי בן יועזר איש צרדה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים קבלו מהם יוסי בן יועזר אומר יהי ביתך בית ועד לחכמים והוי מתאבק בעפר רגליהם והוי שותה בצמא את דבריהם:

Malbim[i](Mishlei 26:5): A fool should be answered because he might think he is wise You should answer a fool in a manner that he will realize that he is not wise. If you don’t answer him, he will think that it is because he is in fact a brilliant person. Therefore, you should answer him in a mild manner because the main thing is to convince him of his foolishness. If you should respond harshly that would indicate you merely want to convince him that you are brilliant…

---

[i] מלבי"ם (משלי כו:ה): ענה כסיל כאולתו פן יהיה חכם בעיניו - תענהו על אופן שלא ידמה לו שהוא חכם אחר שלא מצאת מענה, ועל אופן זה תענהו בדברים קלים, כי עיקר הכונה להראות שהוא כסיל, ולא תענהו בדברים חריפים להראות חכמתך, ועתה מפרש מה שיענהו.

Maharal[i] (Avos 2:14): One should not be wicked against oneself. Similarly R’ Eliezer says that one should study diligently in order to answer the heretic…This is referring to the transient thoughts of heresy that pop into a person’s mind… Thus if one learns diligently to be able to answer the heretic then he will not have even transient thoughts of heresy…

---

[i] מהר"ל (דרך חיים ב:יד) ד"ה ובא ר"ש והוסיף ...ולכך אמר אל תהיה רשע בפני עצמך כלומר שאתה רשע כנגד עצמך. וכן מה שאמר ר' אלעזר הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה ...ואמר ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס דבר זה הוא הרהורי מינות שעולים במחשבת נפשו של האדם ... וכנגד זה אמר ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס שאם ילמד מה שישיב לאפיקורס כל שכן שלא יעלה על לבו ומחשבתו שום הרהור רע. ומפני כי הנפש מהרהר המינות אמר שיהיה שקוד לבטל זה מעיקרא והרי זה תקון נפשו ביותר מן כל הראשונים...

Rabbeinu Bachye[i](Devarim 13:7): … Because if a person has faith entirely because of tradition, if he hears attacks on the tradition from mistaken and heretical people he has no certainly that he won’t be influenced. Since his faith is mechanical without understanding, it is definitely possible that he will be influenced - either by accepting their arguments or having doubts about his beliefs. This is just like a blind person who is not secure that he won’t stumble while a sighted person who relies on himself doesn’t have to be concerned about this. Thus, a person who understands his tradition is secure that he won’t be turned from his faith because his understanding can refute challenges to his beliefs. Therefore, a person should not rely totally on tradition but should learn and become knowledgeable until his faith is complete and thus have faith both from tradition and understanding. That is what is meant in Avos (2:19): Diligently study Torah so that you can know how to refute the heretic. That is why the Torah indicates here that there are two aspects off faith - understanding and tradition…

---

[i] רבינו בחיי (דברים יג:ז) ... כי המאמין מצד הקבלה אם ישמע דברי התועים והכופרים עובדי אלילים אינו בטוח בעצמו שלא יטה לבו לאחד מהם כיון שאין לו חכמה, אבל בודאי אפשר שיטה לבו, או יאמין או יסתפק כמו העור שאינו בטוח בעצמו שלא יכשל, אבל הפקח הוא בטוח שלא יכשל כי כח הראות חזק עמו ואין צריך לאחר, כן המאמין הזה שלם בעצמו, בטוח שלא יטה לבו אחרי המבהילים, ומתוך חכמתו וידיעתו יסתור דעתם וישאר לבו חזק באמונתו, לכך יצטרך האדם שלא יספיק לו ענין אמונתו מצד הקבלה בלבד אלא שילמוד ויחכם עד שתשלם אמונתו ותהיה לו אמונה מצד הקבלה ומצד הידיעה, ועל זה אמרו רז"ל הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס. וזהו שהזכיר בכאן שני חלקי האמונה ואמר אשר לא ידעת זהו אמונה מצד הידיעה, אתה ואבותיך היא האמונה מצד קבלת האבות:

Chovas HaLevavos[i](1:2): … Similarly the person who understands G‑d’s unity solely through the rote learning of tradition cannot be sure that he won’t come to believe in polytheism when he hears the arguments of the heretics. He might come to alter his understanding and err without being aware of it. That is why our Sages said (Avos 2:14): Study Torah diligently and know how to answer the heretic.

---

[i] חובות הלבבות (א:ב) .... וכן המייחד מצד הקבלה אין בוטחין בו שלא יבוא לידי שיתוף, שאם ישמע דברי המשנים (הכופרים) וטענותם, אפשר שתשתנה דעתו ויטעה (ויכפור) ולא יכיר. ומפני זה אמרו רבותינו, זכרונם לברכה (אבות ב:יד): הוי שקוד ללמוד תורה, ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס.

Ksav V’HaKabbala[i](Bereishis 12:2): …When exposed to questions from skeptics it is possible that that his faith will weaken. Thus we see that faith is an aid to knowledge and knowledge supports faith and that they need each other. One should not stop studying the truth of his faith. However, if he fails to understand some aspect of it, he should assume that the problem is with his intellect and he should hold on to his faith. (Because of the importance of having both knowledge and emuna, the men of the Great Assembly decreed the beracha of emes (truth) and emuna which follows the saying of Shema. Emes (truth) refers to that which is known clearly through the intellect while emuna (faith) is that which is accepted because of the traditions from our forefathers.

---

[i] הכתב והקבלה (בראשית יב:ב) ד"ה ואעשך לגוי גדול... כי מצד שאלות המינים אפשר להתרפות באמונה לבדה, ולזה האמונה היא עזר הידיעה והידיעה משענת האמונה וכל אחת צריכה לחברתה, לא ירף מלחקור בדעתו על אמתת אמונתו, אמנם גם מה שנעדר ממנו הידיעה וההשכלה יתלה החסרון בדעתו ויחזיק באמונתו (ועל שתים אלה ר"ל הידיעה והאמונה תיקנו אנשי כנה"ג אמת ואמונה בברכה שלאחר קבלת מלכות שמים ואחדותו ועול מצותיו ית', אמת על ידיעת אמתות אלה לאנשי חקרי לב, ואמונה על ידיעת אמתותה מצד קבלת אבותינו שבידינו...

Shaloh[i](Tractate Rosh HaShanna): …a person who serves G‑d as a trained habit will sometimes do it and sometimes not and faith is not firmly established in his heart. Consequently, if a non‑Jew, or someone else like him, contradicts his faith with proofs and questions - it is possible that the critic will be successful in destroying his faith. In contrast one who serves from the knowledge in his heart, he will not be defeated in the slightest. The words of the Reishis Chochma are obviously true and coincide with what I have had said before on this matter. This that he concludes that the knowledgeable believer will not be influenced in the slightest - the reason is because truth establishes itself and man prefers to stay with the truth. The apparent exception to this was Elisha ben Abuyah (Acher) who knew the truth clearly in his heart that G‑d is unique unity, yet he argued with the truth against the normal way of the world. He did this entirely because of his bad heart and that is why it was such a tremendous sin. …

---

[i] השל"ה (הגהות למסכת ראש השנה—חמישית) ...העובד דרך מצות אנשים מלומדה, פעם יעשה ופעם לא יעשה, ואין לבו תקוע באמונה, ואם יבא גוי או אחר כמוהו ויסתור לו אמונתו מכח ראיות וקושיות, אפשר שינוצח, אמנם העובד בידיעת לבו לא ינוצח בשום פנים וכו': והנה אמת נכון הדבר ומכוון לכל מה שהזכרתי לעיל מינה בענין זה. ומה שסיים דבריו, אמנם העובד בידיעת לבו לא ינוצח בשום פנים, הטעם הוא כי האמת יעשה דרכו דרך גבר בעלמא להחזיק האמת, ואלישע אחר שהיה יודע האמת הברור בלבו שהוא יתברך אחד יחיד, והוא חולק על האמת שלא כדרך העולם, אין זה כי אם רוע לב העיד שקר בעצמו, על כן גדול עונו מנשוא. 

Rashbatz[i](Magen Avos 2:19): Know how to reply to the heretic. This is the justification of our practice to learn secular knowledge in order that we can reply to them and tell them that they have no proofs that contradict the Torah and Prophets. This is not a violation of the prohibition of learning books not included in the Bible - since Sanhedrin (100b) indicates that it applies only to books like Ben Sira which are part of the ancient Wisdom Literature or books written by heretics which lack wisdom and are just a waste of time. Furthermore, the prohibition of learning Greek Wisdom… does not apply to wisdom which is learned through intellectual analysis but refers to a skill that existed in Talmudic times for communicating by hints and allusions… In fact, this skill is not inherently prohibited but was prohibited because of its role in a particular event in the Destruction of the Temple…. The apparently prohibition found in Berachos (28b) to keep your children away for higayon - but higayon is not logic or rhetoric. Rashi says it refers to idle chatter… In sum, those books which are based upon intellectual analysis are not prohibited and someone who reads them should accept that which is true and will learn to reply to their claims which are against the Torah. We find this with R’ Meir whose teacher was a heretic and would accept the truth and discard the falsehoods… Furthermore Chagiga (11b) states that one can investigate anything concerning this world but not which above or below it and not which is before and after it. Therefore, it is permitted to investigate scientifically anything connected with this world. We are only prohibited to read those books which don’t contain knowledge concerning reality.

---

[i] מגן אבות לרשב"ץ (אבות ב:יט) ודע מה שתשיב את אפיקורוס מכאן נהגנו היתר בעצמנו ללמוד החכמות ההם, כדי שמדברי עצמם נשיבם לומר להם כי אין להם ראיות לסתור דברי תורה ונביאים. ואין זה בכלל מה שאמרו, הקורא בספרים החיצוניים, אין לו חלק לעולם הבא, כי כבר פירשו בגמרא פרק חלק [סנהדרין ק:], כגון ספרי בן סירא... וכמו ספרי הערב מדברי הימים וכן ספרי מינים שאין בהם חכמה, אלא אבוד זמן וכן מה שאסרו ללמוד חכמה יונית ... לא אמרו זה על חכמה שהיא על דרך חקירה שכלית, אלא על החכמה שהיתה נוהגת באותו זמן לדבר בלשון רמיזה... ואף חכמה זו מותרת היתה, אלא מפני אותו מעשה הנזכר במנחות פרק ר' ישמעאל [סד:], ועל אותו מעשה אמרו, ארור המלמד את בנו חכמה יונית והמגדל חזירים. ומה שאמרו בברכות [כח:] בפרק תפלת השחר מנעו בניכם מן ההגיון אינו חכמת א"ל מנט"ק [אמר אהרן יעללינעק, א"ל מנט"ק בלשון ערב הוא חכמת הגיון או לוגיק"ה] כי רש"י ז"ל פירש, הגיון שיחה בטלה.... אבל הספרים המחוברים על דרכי הראיות, אינן בכלל זה, והקורא בהם יקבל מהם האמת וישקוד ללמוד להשיב במה שהוא כנגד התורה וכמו שאמרו על ר' מאיר כשלמד מאלישע אחר, רימון מצא, תוכו אכל, קליפתו זרק,... וכבר אמרו בפרק אין דורשין [חגיגה יא:], מקצה השמים ועד קצה השמים אתה שואל, ואין אתה שואל מה למעלה מה למטה, ומה לפנים מה לאחור. אם כן מותר הוא לדרוש ולתור בחכמה בענין זה העולם כולו ממרכז הארץ עד מקיף הגלגל העליון, ולא הזהרנו אלא מהספרים שאין בהם חכמה מחכמות הנמצאות...

 Seridei Aish[i](2:53): In general there are two alternatives in the war against the false haskalah of non‑Jewish wisdom. The first is to prohibit, ban and fight with great ferocity against it. The second is to dismiss and ridicule it,  while increasing the love and respect to the holiness of our true wisdom which is our life and the length of our days. Therefore when one encounters a modern “rabbi” who is ignorant of the Torah but is an expert in the language of the country and secular knowledge, it is necessary to draw attention to his ignorance of Torah and ridicule him concerning that ignorance. At the same time not to acknowledge his mastery of secular knowledge or respect him as a secular scholar. Similarly concerning a person who is both a Torah scholar and has mastered secular knowledge, it is necessary to honor him because of his Torah and to ignore his secular knowledge as if it doesn’t exist at all.

---

[i] שרידי אש (ב:נג עמוד תצ"ט) ובכלל יש שתי דרכים של מלחמה נגד ההשכלה המזוייפת של חכמות חיצוניות. אחת היא האיסור והחרם והמלחמה בזעף נגדה, והשני' היא הביטול בלב והזלזול בכבודה ותגבורת חיבה וכבוד לקדושת חכמתנו האמיתית, שהיא חיינו ואורך ימינו. למשל, כשרואים רב מודרני שאינו יודע את התורה ובקי בשפת המדינה ויודע חכמות חיצוניות, צריך להכריז על מיעוט ידיעתו בתורה ולזלזל בו על מיעוט ידיעה זו. אבל לא להכריז על ידיעתו בהשכלה, שעי"כ אנו מחשיבים אותה. וכן כשבא אדם שהוא ת"ח ויש לו גם השכלה, צריך לכבדו בשביל תורתו ולהסיח דעת מהשכלתו, כאלו איננה בעולם כלל. 

Ralbag[i](Mishlei 12:1): No sinful mishap will happen to the righteous because G‑d protects them from the harm that others want do to them and also protects them from improper attributes and thoughts. In contrast, the wicked are full of bad from all aspects because G‑d doesn’t protect them.

---

[i] רלב"ג (משלי יב:א) לא יאונה - לא יקרה לצדיקים שום דבר און כי השם יתברך ישמרם מהאון שיחשבו עליהם הרעים באופן שלא יזוקו בו וגם ישמרם מהאון במדות ובדעות על דרך ההשגחה ואמנם הרשעים מלאו רע מכל אלו הפנים כי אין הש"י משגיח בהם לשמרם מהם:

---

[i] מהר"ל (נתיבות עולם א:יד נתיב התורה) ..., אמנם עדיין צריך עיון שהרי אסור ללמוד מרב שאינו הגון ... וגם זה אין ראייה דשם אמר כשהוא לומד מפיו ויש לו התקרבות וחבור אל הרב שמקבל ממנו שאינו הגון ולכך אסור, אבל מן החבורים שחברו אין שייך זה. מכל מקום צריך עיון ללמוד בחבורים שלהם אשר הם דברים נגד תורת משה רבינו עליו השלום בחדוש העולם ובידיעות השם יתברך ובהשארת הנפש ועולם הבא אם יש לעיין בהם,... ויש לחוש באולי יהיה המעיין נמשך אחר דבריהם וראייתם, כמו שמצינו בני אדם שהיו נמשכים אחריהם... אך אמנם אם דעתו כמו שאמרו (אבות ב:יד) ודע מה שתשיב לאפיקורס ואם לא ידע דבריהם איך ידע להשיב על דבריהם ואם כן צריך לדעת דבריהם, ודבר זה בודאי מותר אם כוונתו ללמוד דבריהם כדי שידע להשיב לאפיקורס... ולענין זה מותר ולא נחוש שיהיה נמשך אחר דעתם אם תחלת כוונתו לסתור דבריהם כאשר דברו נגד התורה ודעת חכמים, אך לעשות דבר זה להביא דבריהם לפרש בהם דברי תורה ולהם אין חלק וזכרון בתורת משה והרי שם רשעים ירקב. ... ולא מצאנו דבר זה בתלמוד להזכיר את אחד להביא ממנו שום דבר חכמה את אשר לא היה לו חלק בתורת משה. ומקרוב זה שנתפשטו חבורים אלו ונמשך דעות בני אדם אחר דבריהם להתחכם גם כן בדברים שמגיעים לעקרי האמונה, ... בודאי אם הדבר שנמצא בדבריהם הוא פירוש וחזוק אל הדברים שנמצאו בדברי חכמינו דבר זה ראוי לקבל, אבל אם ... הוא כנגד מה שנמצא בתורה אף בדבר מה חס ושלום שיהיה מקבל אף דבר קטן... כלל העולה מדברינו כי יש לעיין בדבריהם שיוכל להשיב על דבריהם לשואל כמו שאמרו חכמים. ואם ימצא דבר הגון בדבריהם המחזיק האמונה יקבל, אך מה שנמצא בדבריהם אף דבר קטון שהוא כנגד אמונת ישראל או אשר נמצא בדברי חכמים אף דבר קטון חס ושלום לשמוע להם, אך יתבונן בשכלו להשיב על דבריהם כפי שכלו. ובזה יהיה זהיר וזריז בכל נפשו להעמיד דבר אמת, שלכך אבות העולם הראשונים צוו בגודל האזהרה הוי שקוד ללמוד כדי שתשיב לאפיקורס וכמו שפרשנו שם, ובודאי אין זה נאמר רק על פילוסופי יון שהיו חוקרים מדעתם ומשכלם ושאלתם חקירת פילוסופי, ולכך אמר שיהיה שקוד דהיינו זריזות יתירה ועיון שכלי להשיב על דבריהם להעמיד דת אמת. ובזה יהיה שכרו עם הצדיקים בגן עדן אמן כן יהי רצון. סליק:

Maharal[i](Divrei Nagidim): The person who doesn’t know how to ask a question is not far from being a wicked person. Even though he has not reached the level of causing others to sin by ridiculing their religion. By the fact that he doesn’t have questions at all concerning the commandments, it appears that he has no relationship at all with them. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to answer him by saying that for the sake of these mitzvos G‑d did miracles for me in my redemption from Egypt. This is to arouse his desire to take part in these mitzvos and to understand that they have such great power that they brought about the redemption… If he listens then it is well. If he doesn’t then you, speak to him exactly as you speak to the wicked person. “For me and not for you. If you had been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed.”

---

[i] מהר"ל (ספר דברי נגידים עמוד עג) ד"ה אמנם דע כי - וכיון שהאינו יודע לשאול הוא לא רחוק הרבה ממדרגת הרשע. אף שלא הגיע עוד אליו להיות גם מחטיא את אחרים ללעוג מעבודתם. אבל הלא גם הוא כיון שאינו שואל כלל על המצות נראה שאין לו שום שייכות אל המצות. ועל כן שפיר שייך אליו זו התשובה בעבור זה עשה ה' לי בצאתי ממצרים. לעוררו בחשקות ליקח חלק במצות האלו ולהבינו שכח גדול שיש להן שבעבורן היתה הגאולה.. ואם ישמע מוטב. ואם לא יאמר לו גם כן בדיוק הזה שיאמר לרשע. לי ולא לך. אלו היית שם לא היית נגאל...

Bava Basra (75a) R. Johanan explained when he once sat and gave an exposition: The Holy One, blessed be He, will in time to come bring precious stones and pearls which are thirty cubits by thirty and will cut out from them openings ten cubits by twenty, and will set them up in the gates of Jerusalem. A certain student sneered at him: Jewels of the size of a dove's egg are not to be found; are jewels of such a size to be found? After a time, his ship sailed out to sea where he saw ministering angels engaged in cutting precious stones and pearls which were thirty cubits by thirty and on which were engravings of ten cubits by twenty. He said unto them: ‘For whom are these?’ They replied that the Holy One, blessed be He, would in time to come set them up in the gates of Jerusalem. When he came again before R. Johanan he said unto him: ‘Expound, O my master; it is becoming for you to expound; as you said, so have I seen.’ He replied unto him: ‘Raca, had you not seen, would not you have believed? You are then sneering at the words of the Sages!’ He set his eyes on him and the student turned into a heap of bones.

Rambam[i](Avos 2:14): You should know what to answer the apikorus. It is necessary to learn things to be able to refute the apikorus when they ask you questions. It is important to note that this only applies to a non‑Jewish heretic. In contrast one should not argue with a Jewish heretic since it only makes them worse and they intensify their abusive comments. Therefore, one should not speak to them at all since it serves no constructive purpose and you can’t help them at all... Furthermore, even though the ability to respond to the heretics requires that one learn the non‑Jewish religions, one should take care not to accept any aspect of their religion. You should constantly be aware that G‑d is fully cognizant of what is in your heart. Therefore, one’s heart should always be directed at having the proper faith.

---

[i] רמב"ם (אבות ב:יד): מה שתשיב לאפיקורוס. אמר צריך שתלמד דברים שתשיב בהם לאפיקורסים ותחלוק עליהם ותשיבם אם יקשו לך, ואמרו (סנהדרין שם) לא שנו אלא אפיקורס עובד כוכבים אבל אפיקורס ישראל כ"ש דפקר טפי, ר"ל שיוסיף לבזות, ומפני זה אין צריך לדבר עמו כלל שאין לו תקנה ואין לו רפואה כלל ועיקר שנאמר כל באיה לא ישובון ולא ישיגו ארחות חיים, ואמרו אף על פי שתלמד דעות האומות לדעת איך תשיב עליהם. השמר שלא יעלה בלבך דבר מן הדעות 

ההם, ודע שמי שתעמוד לפניו יודע צפון לבך, והוא אמרו ודע לפני מי אתה עמל. רצה לומר שיכוין לבו באמונת השם יתברך:

Questions II - versus doubts

Citations from Daas Torah See Questions-I-what-vs-why-vs-silence

R’ S. R. Hirsch (Nineteen Letters #18): [the leaders of Orthodoxy] became at first enemies of this philosophical spirit, and later of all specifically intellectual and philosophical pursuits in general. Certain misunderstood utterances [e.g., Bereishis Rabbah 44:1] were taken as weapons with which to repel all higher interpretations of the Talmud . . . The inevitable consequence was, therefore, that since oppression and persecution had robbed Israel of every broad and natural view of world and of life, and Talmud had yielded about all the practical results for life of which it was capable, every mind that felt the desire of independent activity was obliged to forsake the paths of study and research in general open to the human intellect, and to take its recourse to dialectic subtleties and hairsplitting. Only a very few [e.g., R’ Yehuda HaLevi’s Kuzari and Ramban] during this entire period stood with their intellectual efforts entirely within Judaism, and built it up out of its own inner concept [Drachman translation]…. we are left with two generations confronting each other. One of them has inherited an uncomprehended Judaism, as practiced by men from habit, a revered but lifeless mummy which it is afraid to bring back to life. The other, though in part burning with noble enthusiasm for the welfare of the Jews, regards Judaism as bereft of any life and spirit, a relic of an era lone past and buried, and tries to uncover its spirit, but, not finding it, threatens through its well‑meant efforts to sever the last life nerve of Judaism—out of sheer ignorance [Paritzky translation].

===================

Rambam (Commentary to Sanhedrin 10:1):When a person believes fully and genuinely in all these 13 principles of faith, he is considered part of the Jewish people and it is obligatory to love him, to have mercy on him and to relate to according to all the mitzvos that G‑d has commanded concerning interpersonal relationships of love and brotherhood. Moreover, even if he is a sinner because of lust and lack of self‑control—he will be punished according to his sins—nevertheless he still has Olam HaBah. However, if he questions or doubts any of these principles he is outside the Jewish people and is a denier of the foundation of Judaism. He is labeled a heretic (min, apikorus or cut off at the roots). It is obligatory to hate him and destroy him as its says in Tehilim (139:21) “I hate those who hate G‑d.”

Rav Saadiya Gaon(Emuna v’De’os 5:4): The heretic (kofer) is one who has abandoned the foundation of religion—G‑d. There are three types of abandonment. 1) He worships some other deity such as a statue or image or human being or the sun or the moon… 2) He worships neither another deity nor G‑d. In other words, he worships nothing—not true and not false. … 3) He has doubts about his faith—even though he is thought to be a fully practicing member of the religion. He still prays and supplicates—however his heart is not involved and he doesn’t belief. Such a person a person is a hypocrite in his words and faith. These people are described in Tehilim (78:36–37): “But they flattered Him with their mouth and lied to Him with their tongue. For their heart was not right with Him, Neither were they faithful in His covenant.” Such a person profanes the name of Heaven and is on that level.

====================

Maharal(Divrei Nagidim):The person who doesn’t know how to ask a question is not far from being a wicked person. Even though he has not reached the level of causing others to sin by ridiculing their religion. By the fact that he doesn’t have questions at all concerning the commandments, it appears that he has no relationship at all with them. Therefore, it is quite appropriate to answer him by saying that for the sake of these mitzvos G‑d did miracles for me in my redemption from Egypt. This is to arouse his desire to take part in these mitzvos and to understand that they have such great power that they brought about the redemption… If he listens then it is well. If he doesn’t then you, speak to him exactly as you speak to the wicked person. “For me and not for you. If you had been in Egypt you would not have been redeemed.”

Maharal(Avos 2:14): Similarly R’ Eliezer says that one should study diligently in order to answer the heretic…This is referring to the transient thoughts of heresy that pop into a person’s mind… Thus if one learns diligently to be able to answer the heretic than one will not have even transient thoughts of heresy…

Maharal :Silencing questions & suppressing dissent indicates a weak religion

Daas Torah page 202

Maharal (Be’er HaGolah #7): One should not reject something which is against one’s views…especially if it is not presented as an attack on religion but is simply is an honest expression of the other person’s understanding of faith. Even if it is against one’s religious faith, he should not say, “Be quiet and shut your mouth.” Because if one silences sincere questions there will not be a clarification of that person’s religious understanding. In fact, such a person should be encouraged to speak and fully express how he feels. If sincere questions are silenced that is indicative that the religion is weak and needs to be protected from inquiry. This attitude is the opposite of what some people think. They mistakenly think that silencing questions strengthens religious faith. In fact however suppressing of dissent and questions indicates a weak religion. Thus, we find with our ancestors that even if they found something in books against religion they would not simply reject it…

‘There’s one giant winner from this: Vladimir Putin’: Fmr. Amb. rips Trump-Vance ‘meltdown’

Vindman DESTROYS Trump after Ukraine DISASTER

‘This is the point you resign’: Former U.S. National Security Advisor calls on Marco Rubio to resign

Russia's best ally

Two new details learned from Trump's Oval Office meltdown

‘There is no question this was a setup’: Amb. Susan Rice on Trump’s Oval Office ambush of Zelenskyy

Embed Video

‘A bigger victory for Putin than any military battle’: Russia gleeful after Trump-Zelenskyy clash

 https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/01/russia-trump-zelenskyy-ukraine-leader-oval-office-putin

For Kremlin insiders, the incident also signified a fundamental shift in the global order, with a White House no longer seen as an enemy but rather as a partner to Moscow – one with whom business and politics can be conducted.

Zelensky says he doesn't think he did anything wrong after public spat with Trump

 https://www.axios.com/2025/03/01/trump-zelensky-spat-fox-interview

The earlier shouting match in front of the cameras led to the explosion of a meeting between the two leaders, with Trump asking Zelensky to leave the White House.

It also took off the table, for now, the U.S.-Ukraine minerals agreement that was supposed to be signed on Friday.

The divide between the U.S. and Ukrainian leaders will likely lead to more changes in the Trump administration's policy towards Ukraine.

A U.S. official said Trump is considering several retaliatory steps, including stopping military assistance to Ukraine.

World Leaders React to Zelensky and Trump’s Oval Office Showdown

 https://time.com/7263291/zelensky-trump-oval-office-showdown-us-ukraine-world-leaders-react/

“He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace,” Trump said. 

Following the Oval Office confrontation, many world leaders have spoken out, remarking upon what happened. 

Some have reified their support for Ukraine in its defense against Russia’s invasion. A few have supported Trump.

Tense Oval Office meeting | Trump and Vance scold Zelenskyy: You're not acting thankful

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/404680

Zelenskyy and Trump, who was joined by Vice President JD Vance, exchanged sharp words over the nature of US support for Ukraine and whether Zelenskyy had shown sufficient gratitude.

“You’re not really in good position right now,” Trump scolded Zelenskyy, adding, “You’re gambling with World War III.”

Trump warned Zelenskyy that Ukraine had to make a deal with the United States, or his country would end its support.

"Your people are very brave, but you're either going to make a deal or we're out, and if we're out, you'll fight it out," Trump said, adding, "I don't think it's going to be pretty, but you'll fight it out, but you don't have the cards."

Trump also told Zelenskyy, "And you're not acting at all thankful, and that's not a nice thing."

Why Narcissist Trump Had to Be the Oval Office’s Biggest TV Star

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/why-narcissist-donald-trump-had-to-be-the-oval-offices-biggest-tv-star/

But the moment passed. Trump decided he could not just let Zelensky “disrespect” him in the Oval Office. The meeting ended and Zelensky was asked to depart the White House and his subsequent thank-yous would not likely change anything. Trump asked the press to leave the Oval Office.

“I think we’ve seen enough,” Trump said.

The one-time star of The Apprentice then said of his meeting with the one-time star of Servant of the People, “This is going to be great television, I will say that.”

5 takeaways from Trump-Vance-Zelensky Oval Office blowup

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5170254-five-takeaways-from-trump-vance-zelensky-oval-office-blow-up/

Happiest of all: Russia

For all the delight expressed by some of Trump’s domestic allies, the real gloating seemed to come from Moscow.

Putin ally Dmitry Medvedev, who served as Russia’s president more than a decade ago, celebrated on social media that “the insolent pig finally got a proper slap down in the Oval Office.”

Medvedev also endorsed Trump’s view that Zelensky was gambling with World War Three. 

The Associated Press (AP) quoted a Russian lawmaker, Andrei Klishas, as describing the outcome of the meeting as “a brilliant result.”

Whatever Trump’s intentions, the current picture could hardly look rosier from the Kremlin’s perspective. 

How Zelensky's White House Visit With Trump Unraveled in Real Time

 https://www.newsweek.com/how-zelenskys-white-house-visit-trump-unraveled-real-time-2037983

President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky were scheduled to sign a minerals deal Friday at the White House and then hold a joint press conference in a choreographed show of solidarity aimed at repairing their increasingly fraught relationship.

Instead, Trump effectively kicked Zelensky out of the White House and canceled the press conference after a remarkably heated exchange with Ukraine's leader in the Oval Office — a dramatic turn of events that ratcheted up tensions between the two leaders and put Trump's push for a quick peace deal in Ukraine in doubt.

"I have determined that President Zelenskyy is not ready for Peace," Trump wrote in a social media post immediately after the Oval Office meeting. "He disrespected the United States of America in its cherished Oval Office. He can come back when he is ready for Peace."

Minutes later, Zelensky's motorcade was seen pulling up to the White House, preparking to whisk him away. A White House spokesperson said Friday that the minerals deal was not signed, according to a pool report.

A Fiasco in the Oval Office

 https://www.thefp.com/p/a-fiasco-in-the-oval-office

On Friday the world witnessed one of the most astonishing spectacles in White House history.

American presidents have surely dressed down besieged allies behind closed doors; never before has it happened on live television. This break with any prior presidential diplomacy must be seen to be believed.

What unfolded between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance turned into a political Rorschach test.

For Trump’s base, the 50-minute exchange was proof positive of America First foreign policy—an ungrateful freeloader gets upbraided by the populist tribune.

For Americans who still cling to the now unfashionable notion that the international system should be ruled by rules and not might, Friday’s incident was a horror.

From the perspective of Europe, it's the beginning of the end of the Trans-Atlantic alliance...