Thursday, August 7, 2025

Absolute Truth

 I'm reading "Stranger Than We Can Imagine: Making Sense of the Twentieth Century" by John Higgs and wanted to share this quote with you.

Start reading this book for free: https://a.co/e4Y75q3

 "The existence of absolute truth has also been declared by neoliberalists and socialists, by terrorists and vigilantes, and by scientists and hippies. The belief in certainty is a broad church indeed. All these people disagree on what form this absolutism takes, unfortunately. But they’re pretty sure that it exists. This faith in absolute certainty is not based on any evidence for the existence of certainty. It can sometimes appear to stem from a psychological need for certainty which afflicts many people, particularly older men. Cultural debate in the early twenty-first century has, "as a result, descended into a War of the Certain. Different factions, all of whom agree about the existence of absolute truth, are shouting down anyone who has a different definition of that absolute truth. Fortunately, true absolutism is rare. Most people, scientists and non-scientists alike, unconsciously adopt a position of multiple-model agnosticism. This recognizes that we make sense of the world by using a number of different and sometimes contradictory models. A multiple-model agnostic would "not say that all models are of equal value, because some models are more useful than others, and the usefulness of a model varies according to context. They would not concern themselves with infinite numbers of interpretations as that would be impractical, but they understand that there is never only one interpretation. Nor would they agree that something is not “real” because our understanding of it is a cultural or linguistic construct. Things can still be real, even when our understanding of them is flawed Multiple-model agnostics are, ultimately, pretty loose. They rarely take impractical, extreme positions, which may be why they do not do well on the editorial boards of academic postmodern journals. Multiple-model agnosticism is an approach familiar to any scientist. Scientists do not possess a grand theory of everything, but they do have a number of competing and contradictory models, which are valid at certain scales and in certain circumstances."

​​​​One can of artificially sweetened soft drink daily may increase diabetes risk by more than a third​​​

 https://www.monash.edu/news/articles/one-can-of-artificially-sweetened-soft-drink-daily-may-increase-diabetes-risk-by-more-than-a-third

An Australian study has found that drinking just one can of artificially sweetened soft drink a day may increase the risk of developing type 2 diabetes by 38 per cent.​​​

​​​​Surprisingly, that risk for artificially sweetened soft drink is even higher than for those who consume sugar-sweetened beverages, such as regular soft drinks, where the risk was found to be 23 per cent higher.​​​

Trump's higher tariffs go into effect on dozens of countries

 https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/trumps-higher-tariffs-go-effect-dozens-countries

President Donald Trump's higher import taxes on dozens of countries went into effect on Thursday, just as the economic impact of his earlier tariffs had started to show visible harm to the U.S. economy.

Senior Haredi leader threatens ‘global struggle like never before’ to avoid IDF draft

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/senior-haredi-leader-threatens-global-struggle-like-never-before-over-idf-draft

The spiritual leader of the ultra-Orthodox Degel HaTorah party on Wednesday accused the government of waging war on the Haredi community, following the arrest of two Haredi draft evaders.

“The State of Israel has declared war on yeshiva students. Haredi Judaism will embark on a global struggle like never before,” a spokesman for Rabbi Dov Lando, one of the most prominent rabbinic leaders of the so-called “Lithuanian” stream of ultra-Orthodoxy, declared in a statement.

Alongside the Hasidic Agudat Yisrael, Degel HaTorah is one of the two factions in the United Torah Judaism party.

Research on reversing Alzheimer’s reveals lithium as potential key

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/science/2025/08/06/lithium-reverses-alzheimers-mice

Researchers led by Bruce A. Yankner, a professor of genetics and neurology at Harvard Medical School, reported that they were able to reverse the disease in mice and restore brain function with small amounts of the compound lithium orotate, enough to mimic the metal’s natural level in the brain. Their study appeared Wednesday in the journal Nature.

Gabbard’s Russian interference claims directly contradict what other Trump officials have said

 https://edition.cnn.com/2025/07/22/politics/tulsi-gabbard-russia-trump-obama-analysis

When President Donald Trump sided with Vladimir Putin over his own intelligence community on the topic of Russia’s interference in the 2016 US election, then-Sen. Marco Rubio sharply rebuked Trump.

The Florida Republican said in 2018 that the intelligence community’s “assessment of 2016 is accurate. It’s 100% accurate. The Russians interfered in our elections.”

He added: “I think it was not a good moment for the administration, obviously. Hopefully, something like that never happens again.”

But seven years later, it just keeps happening — over and over again — as Trump and his most loyal allies seek to sow doubts about that 2016 episode and punish their political enemies. That’s now taken the form of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard threatening criminal referrals and even floating allegations of treason for key officials in the Obama administration.

Her argument is full of holes, as even critics of the Russia investigation such as the National Review’s Andrew McCarthy have noted. (Basically, the whole thing conflates Russia’s attempts to influence the 2016 election with nonexistent attacks on election infrastructure that changed votes. )

But just as notable is that Gabbard’s move to cast doubt on Russia’s 2016 interference is wholly at odds with several top Trump administration officials, most especially Rubio, along with a pair of congressional investigations spearheaded by Republicans.

US Woman Wakes Up From Coma Moments Before Organ Donation Surgery

 https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/us-woman-wakes-up-from-coma-moments-before-organ-donation-surgery-9033966

On the day of the procedure, one of her sisters observed movement, and a doctor asked Ms Gallegos to blink, which she did, indicating she was still alive.

Abortion

 Shemos (21:22-23) When two or more parties fight, and one of them pushes a pregnant woman and a miscarriage results, but no other damage ensues, the one responsible shall be fined according as the woman’s husband may exact, the payment to be based on reckoning. But if other damage ensues, the penalty shall be life for life.

Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:69.1) Question: Is abortion permitted? Answer: Abortion is prohibited both for Jews and goyim and is considered murder. While it does say in Tosfos (Nida 44a) in two places that abortuion is permitted, this is clearly a mistake in the text  and should have said it is prohibited but exempt which needs to be corrected. The Rambam also rules that abortion is murder.   

Abortion Rav Yakov Emden

Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:69.4) Question Rav Emden (1:43) writes that a mamzer embryo can be aborted since we see that a pregnant adultress is killed with her unborn child and thus he concludes that today it is also relevant even though there is no more Sanhedrin or death penalty. Answer His words are nonsense even if it were written by such a great person as Rav Emden. I saw in his words absurd things that should not be said  It is clear that today without Sanhedrin there is no Torah death penalty and thus there is no justification for abortion of a mamzer. He also writes that someone today who deliberately does a sin that deserves capital punishment that it is good for him to commit suicide. This is clearly prohibited and Rav Emden is to be condemned for these words and the tshuva shouldnot be taken seriously. It was also claimed that the Rashba said the Ramban did abortions for non Jews. However I could not find such as statement in the Rashba nor can anyone else so it must be a forgery.  There is clearly a contradiction in the  Maharit. I was also astonished to see a tshuva written by a posek in Israel to abort an embryo more than 3 months that tests had indicated had Tay Sachs disease. He claimed that most poskim rule that abortion is only a Rabbinic decree for the needs of society and that other poskim such as Rav Emden permit abortion for great need. In fact Rav Emden clearly indicates that abortion is in general prohibited. In conclusion it is clear and obvious as I have written that according to Rishonim that abortion is prohibited as murder whether it is a mamzer or normal embryo or whether it has Tay Sachs. Don’t be mistanen and rely on the lone Israeli posek and I protest against him for the honor of the Torah and Truth. 

Abortion request to doctor 

Igros Moshe (CM II #73.8) Question Concerning those women in present times who are not properly observant  because of our many sins who want to have an abort their pregnancy. Answer  This is clearly prohibited as violating the prohibition against killing and it is also prohibited for a doctor to even assist  not only for Jewish women but also non-Jewish women. Because bnei Noach are also prohibited to kill the unborn. In fact the prohibition is more stringent for a ben Noach because this is a capital crime for them and thus it is prohibited to assist them and also violates the prohibition of lifnei ivair  One should not assist in any way - even to notify her that it is  possible to have an abortion elsewhere even for a non- Jew. Even if there is concern that this might cause hatred (aivah). In fact there is not a problem of causing hatred when it is explained that he doesn’t want to assist in killing  because even non-Jews know that abortion should not be done and many countries prohibit it as murder, Thus a religious doctor can just say that he doesn’t want to be involved in abortion as this is not a curative procedure and even is dangerous to the woman.

Wednesday, August 6, 2025

Torah needs to be supplemented with commonsense

 Rashba (3:393): My view is that if the witnesses are believed by the judges, then it is permitted to punish the accused financially or physically depending upon what the judges think is appropriate to be beneficial to society. Because if we insist on doing only what is specified by Torah law and not to punish except as specified in the Torah – the world will end up destroyed. That is because the elementary rules of a functioning society will be breached and consequently it will be ruined. It is an established practice to punish those who physically harm others…Every community makes judgments in order to preserve it and this is true in every generation and every place according to what is perceived as the needs of the times. For example we see (Sanhedrin 58b) that Rav Huna, who was in Babylonia, would amputate hands as punishment. Therefore these judges you referred to who punished the accused not in accord with Torah law – if they saw the need for it to preserve the society – they have correctly acted according to the halacha. This is true when there is a specific order from the king as we see in the case of R’ Eliezar the son of R’ Shimon bar Yochai in Bava Metzia (83a)


Rav Yosef Eliashiv (Kovetz Teshuvos 3:231):Question: If someone is sexually abusing a boy a girl in circumstances which we can’t stop him from continuing his evil deeds – is it permissible to notify the government authorities? Answer: Rashba (3:393) states: “My view is that if the witnesses are believed by the judges, then it is permitted to punish the accused financially or physically depending upon what the judges think is appropriate to be beneficial to society. Because if we insist on doing only what is specified by Torah law and not to punish except as specified in the Torah – the world will end up destroyed. That is because the elementary rules of a functioning society will be breached and consequently it will be ruined. It is an established practice to punish those who physically harm others…Every community makes judgments in order to preserve it and this is true in every generation and every place according to what is perceived as the needs of the times. For example we see (Sanhedrin 58b) that Rav Huna, who was in Babylonia, would amputate hands as punishment. Therefore these judges you referred to who punished the accused not in accord with Torah law – if they saw the need for it to preserve the society – they have correctly acted according to the halacha. This is true when there is a specific order from the king as we see in the case of R’ Eliezar the son of R’ Shimon bar Yochai in Bava Metzia (83a).” We learn from the Rashba’s words that when action is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), that the Jewish sages have the ability in every generation to act to preserve the society and to repair breaches – even when there isn’t a specific order from the king. The Ritva (Bava Metzia 83b) has stated that this order of the king is “if the king says to capture certain criminals, even though the government will judge without witnesses and warning [as required by Torah law] and there is no functioning Sanhedrin [as required by Torah law] – it is still permitted since he is acting as the agent of the king. Since it is the law of the land to execute criminals without the testimony of witnesses and warning - as it states [Shmuel 2’ 1:5-16] that Dovid killed the Amalekite ger who had acceded to Shaul’s request to kill him -the agent of the king is like him.” However according to what has been said, in a matter which is needed for the well being of society (tikun olam), it is not needed to have been ordered to act by the king [in order to act as needed]. However, it is permitted to notify the government authorities only in the case which it is certain that the accused has been sexually abusing children. Informing the authorities in such a case is clearly something for the well being of the society (tikun olam). However in a case where there is no proof that this activity is happening but it is merely a conjecture or suspicion, if we permit the calling of the authorities - not only would it not be an improvement (tikun olam) - but it would destroy society. That is because it is possible that allegations are being made solely because of some bitterness the student has against his teacher or because of some unfounded fantasy. As a result of these false allegations the accused will be placed in a situation for which death is better than life – even though he is innocent. Therefore I do not see any justification for calling the authorities in such circumstances.

Trump Asked If He Approved Ghislaine Maxwell's Prison Transfer

 https://www.newsweek.com/ghislaine-maxwell-moved-prison-texas-donald-trump-epstein-2109387

Sarah Krissoff, former federal prosecutor who worked under Blanche in New York, echoed that view, telling NPR that it was "enormously unusual" for the deputy attorney general to hold the interview of Maxwell without other law enforcement present. She added: "You generally would never conduct an interview of a cooperating witness without law enforcement personnel in the room."

Epstein bomb EXPLODES on Trump live on Fox! MSNBC Breakdown

המומחה חושף: זו הכת המיסיונרית מאחורי הפצת תמונות וסרטוני - AI

 https://www.kikar.co.il/davar-rishon/ai-missionary-cult-exposed

מניפולציות, הטעיות והפחדות | אלפי פוסטים של אמונה וקבוצות שמתחזות להיות תמימות אך בפועל מנסים למכור לכם שקר על משיח חדש שנגלה | זוג יהודים ממעלה אדומים כבר נפלו בפח | מי נופל בזה ואיך חיפוש תמים של נשים מבוגרות או צעירים שמעוניינים להתחזק באמונה נמצאים בסכנה (מסיון)

Tuesday, August 5, 2025

'A fake narrative': Footage of 'bustling' Gaza markets counter Hamas starvation claims

 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/defense-news/article-863218

The Coordination of Government Activities in the Territories shared footage on Monday of bustling markets with large quantities of food to counter Hamas’s accusations that Israel is deliberately causing a famine in the Gaza Strip.

The footage shows fresh produce being sold, along with pastry shops being open.

While asserting “aid is flowing in, by land and by air every day,” COGAT asserted that “Hamas is pushing a fake famine narrative” while stealing the aid and selling it at a large markup.

Hamas Starves Jews and Palestinians, and Israel Gets Blamed

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/hamas-starves-jews-and-palestinians-and-israel-gets-blamed-36adcea3?mod=hp_opin_pos_6

The Western press and politicians play along with the terror group’s ghastly propaganda campaign.

As Israel faces a blitzkrieg of international condemnation again, mobilized in part by a global press happy to supply the ammunition, it is important to remember one thing:

In the war between the Jewish state and its enemies in Gaza, one side is deliberately starving innocent people to the point of emaciation. One side irrevocably denies the right of its adversary to exist. One side would, if it could, conduct a genocide against the other, wiping every last remnant off the face of the planet.

How UN delays, Hamas theft, and black market greed caused Gaza's hunger

 https://www.jpost.com/middle-east/article-862878

Central to the international pressure on Israel for a ceasefire with Hamas are claims of widespread starvation and even accusations that Israel is deliberately using hunger as a weapon.

But the Press Service of Israel’s closer examination of the humanitarian aid pipeline found that a combination of United Nations policies, Hamas looting, and black market profiteering prevents much aid from reaching Gaza civilians and inflates the prices of items that do reach market shelves.

Most damningly, according to the UN’s own numbers, a staggering 85% of the aid entering the Gaza Strip by truck since May 19 has been stolen.

UN figures show almost all aid trucks entering Gaza since mid-May looted or commandeered

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-august-05-2025

Wife must follow husband’s minhag

Igros Moshe (O.C. I #158): Question If a man and his wife have different customs from different countries and they married in New York which also has a variety of opposing customs. Which customs do they follow? Answer In my view the wife needs to follow the customs of her husband.  The wife after marriage is viewed as being in the domain of her husband according to the Torah law and this is the basis of marriage..  That is why the gemora says that when there is a conflict of honoring her father or or husband that the husband takes precedent. Thus when she marries she moves to the husband domain and must adopt his customs. 

Translating Seforim?

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.2) Question: What is the significance of a sefer of collected rulings without explanation? Answer It would seem that if a scholar made a ruling in a specific case before him according to what he read in a book written by a great scholar which lacks the reasoning used for his ruling that that is not considered a halachic ruling at all and another authority can rule just the opposite whether strictltly or leniently. Nontheless it seems reasonable that in fact this is a halachic ruling since he is basing himself on the ruling of a well known authority who obviously had a legitimate reason for his ruling. Even though the second person did not know the reason it seems others can also rule like the original authority. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.3) Question: Is it permitted translating Seforim such as the Bible and Mishna since Moshe translated the Torah in 70 languages? Answer It is not relevant to learn from Moshe since he didn’t write the translation but said it. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.4) Question Translating the Hebrew Bible which is the Written Torah? Answer  We see in fact that the Bible has many translations such as Targum Onkelos and Targum Yonason.  Tosfos (Moed Koton 3b) also indicates that there is actually preference to Targum because of the principle that Written material is not to be said orally  Writing and printing is clearly permitted because of the needs of the time (ais l’asos). 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.5) Question Should the translation of Mishnayos and halachic rulings be avoided because of concerns for of the accuracy of the translation? Answer  There is no prohibition of translating mishnayos and halachic rulings. However the main concern is that the translator understands the importance of correctly translating. Even a small error in translating can lead to major consequences. Study the introduction to the translation from Arabic to Hebrew to the Rambam’s commentary to the Mishna. These concerns are even greater for an English translation  Therefore it is best to avoid translations. However if a person knows that he is capable of proper translation in English and he is regarded as such by others as well as being a talmid chachom who is very knowledgable in Mishna and he desires to ranslate it is not prohibited. In spite of all this, I would advise not to be involved with translations. It is always better to first learn Hebrew or Aramaic first and study ther original text.  None the less there is no prohibition in translating. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.6) Question Publishing translation of halacha seforim with the reasoning behind the rulings or just the final conclusions? Answer  According to what I have written, works such as Rambam and Shulchan Aruch which are the final halacha – there is no problem to translate them. But it is important that all that they wrote should be fully translated without deviation from what they wrote. If the translator wishes to add an explanation, it should be added as a footnote to the main text and noted whether it is his explanation or that of someone else. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.7) Question: Translating halachic rulings which everyone needs to know and it is impossible to ask a Rav when an actual question arises? Answer As regarding the translating of halachic rulings for those matters needed by everyone and a Rav can not be asked when the question arises such as the laws of shema and prayer, these should be translated so that those who don’t know Hebrew can learn them. However it is sufficient to write  withyout a full explanation of the reasoning and sources. Because the reasoning might interfere with the knowledge of the halacha and he might end up ignoring the halacha. This is true even for a very intelligent person who is very learned in secular ideas.  Eventually he will start learning in a yeshiva where his rabbi will decide what is appropriate for him to learn.  Concerning matters which seem strange to him, they should not be presented. Thus it is best that beginners should only be exposed to material that their rabbi think they can properly understand well. In these matters it is best to not produce books in English but rather he should receive a personal explanation from his Rabbi. However it could be that the benefits of such books is greater than their loss and therefore their publication should not be protested. It is best if the writersof such books should first consult with his rabbi or with a Gadol  before publishing them. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.8) Question Is it permitted to produce an English sefer about kashrus for those just beginning religious observance without explaining the reasoning or books of ethical behavior and theology Answer Writing about topics such as the laws of washing hands (netilas yadayim), grace after meals. blessing of ahl hamichya, blessings on pleasure, salting meat and other laws of kashrus, such a book should be produced in English so that the basic laws of eating should be known.  This is important especially since the beginner is spending extra money to keep kosher. Howver only the summary of the halacha should be written and to first explain the seriousness of eating or drinking prohibited things. The reasoning behind the halacha should be left out. And it should simply stated that this is what is said in the Torah which was given through Moshe at Sinai. Writing such a sefer is definitely a good idea. Even in mentioning halacha, only the minimal amount that is needed by the beginners that they must observe now should be written, while the finer details can wait to be studied later. This applies also if the sefer is in Yiddish  There are other topics that need to be in English. That is because most women only know English and most did not acquire sufficient knowledge from their parent’s home for example the laws of Nidah and even prohibited food as well as muktzeh on Shabbos and Yom Tov or eating and drinking on Yom Kippur.  All these need to be printed in English to prevent errors. It is also appropriate to produce books of ethics and theology which are also Torah and thus are not prohibited. All things that can influence greater religious observance are obligatory even if it requires citing  verses and statements of Chazal. 

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.9) Question : Is it prohibited to publish seforim in English? Answer Those seforim which have been translated and published, it is not prohibited to read them for those who have difficulty reading the original Hebrew if it is a good translation. However it is best to learn Hebrew so the original can be studied. It is clearly easier for some to learn the translation and thus they learn more and perhaps understand it better than if they had only the Hebrew. It is thus best not to permit translations but if done they are permitted to be read.

Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.10) Question : Are English translations prohibited since goyim can use them to study Torah? Answer I don’t think that should prevent English translations since they will primarily studied by Jews. We also see that authorities such as the Rambam was not concerned since he published in Arabic

Psak is mainly reasoning

 Igros Moshe (YD IV #38.2) Question: What is the significance of a sefer of collected rulings without explanation? Answer It would seem that if a scholar made a ruling in a specific case before him according to what he read in a book written by a great scholar which lacks the reasoning used for his ruling that that is not considered a halachic ruling at all and another authority can rule just the opposite whether strictltly or leniently. Nontheless it seems reasonable that in fact this is a halachic ruling since he is basing himself on the ruling of a well known authority who obviously had a legitimate reason for his ruling. Even though the second person did not know the reason it seems others can also rule like the original authority. 

If Lashon Harah is a Character issue- not Issur - then Motivation is paramount not Actions


[update - finished translations] There are a number of critical differences whether lashon harah is primarily a moral issue or primarily an issur. Precise definitions are not needed for moral definitions - people recognize what is right and wrong. In contrast issur requires clear cut parameters and definitions. Perhaps even more important is that moral issues focus on motivation while issur is mainly concerned with the deed. If lashon harah is primarily moral, that would explain why a person who unwittingly said derogatory statements has not committed the sin of lashon harah. If a person speaks derogatory statements for a good purpose he is exempt. In contrast a person is not exempt from transgressing Shabbos or killing simply because he was not thinking of sinning. Rav Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher Vayikra 19:16) brings an example of exemption from the sin of lashon harah because there was no intent to harm.
    Mo''ed Koton (16a): Is it not a fact that R. Simeon, Rabbi's son, and Bar Kappara were once sitting rehearsing the lesson together when a difficulty arose about a certain passage and R. Simeon said to Bar Kappara, ‘This [matter] needs Rabbi [to explain it]’, and Bar Kappara replied: ‘And what forsooth can Rabbi [have to] say on this?’ He went and repeated it to his father, [at which] the latter was vexed, and [when] Bar Kappara next presented himself before Rabbi, he said: ‘Bar Kappara, I have never known you! He realized that he [Rabbi] had taken the matter to heart and submitted himself to the [disability of a] ‘reproof’ for thirty days.
Rashi (Mo'ed Koton 16a) says Rav Shimon repeated Bar Kappara's statement innocently to his father and not as loshon harrah. Rav Weiss says, "Rashi is saying that when one innocently states something without intent of saying something negative - then it is not considered as loshon harah. Thus it appears that the explanation for this is that even though lashon harah is a very serious sin - but it's basis is concern for character perfection. Therefore whatever is not said with a negative intent for another or to harm him - but is said innocently - is not considered a sin at all. It is not even considered shogeg. That is because the underlying principle of this sin is concern for imperfect character traits - and that is dependent on motivation. I give a similar explanation concerning the view of Ramban that the prohibition of fraudulent commercial transaction is only if it is intentionally fraudulent. 

"However Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon HaRah 7 in Be'er Mayim Chaim 18) says that in fact one is guilty of lashon harah when it is said innocently. The Chofetz Chaim explains that  Rashi doesn't mean that he said it without intent to harm but rather he was not paying attention to what he was saying. He notes that the Rambam(Hilchos Lashon Harah 7:4) poskens that even if one said lashon harah as a joke or as levity that he is guilty of lashon harah. However the Chofetz Chaim's explanation is problematic. Aside from the fact that the explanation does not fit with Rashi's words - it is difficult to accept the assertion that Bar Kapara sinned beshogeg and wasn't paying attention to what he was saying." 

"Furthermore the Rambam is understood by the Chofetz Chaim to mean that even when there is no intention of saying something negative it is still lashon harah. However the Rambam meant something different.  When a person makes a joke out of derogatory material it is still  the sin of lashon harah since his words are still inherently derogatory in themselves. It is the nature of jokes and levity to be abusive and thus he transgresses – even though he doesn't intend to degrade another person. In contrast concerning words that are not inherently derogatory in themselves – such as Bar Kapara – who only meant that Rabbi Yehuda wasn't in a position to know how to resolve this  particular question. In addition Rav Shimon when he repeated Bar Kapara's words to his father had not intended to convey anything negative about Bar Kapara but he was merely asking for a clarification. In such a case the prohibition of lashon harah is not violated since the information was said innocently and the words themselves were not inherently derogatory. Thus negative words said as a joke are different than ambiguous words which were said innocently and thus there is no support for the Chofetz Chaim from this Rambam.  In contrast a person who intends to hurt another transgresses the prohibition of lashon harah no matter what words he uses. This in my opinion is the proper understanding of Rashi and the fundamental principle of what constitutes lashon harah.

We see then that lashon harah is a concern of character and therefore the speaker's intent is critical in determining whether his words constitute lashon harah. With this principle we can understand the rule that whatever is spoken beneficially does not violate the prohibition of lashon harah – as stated by the Chofetz Chaim (Lashon Harah 3:3). In general we know that there are times when Torah prohibitions are set aside e.g., a positive commandment sets aside a negative one and more severe mitzvos displace lesser mitzvos etc. However this is different because lashon harah is not being displaced when the words are said beneficially. As we stated the prohibition of lashon harah is dependent upon whether it is a bad character trait. Therefore whenever the speaker's motivation is for the good and for benefit of his fellow man and not to hurt him – there is absolutely no issur of lashon harah. It is not that is is being displaced – it doesn't exist! If you examine the matter well it is clearly the correct explanation.

Additional support that lashon harah is primarily a prohibition of faulty character comes from the Chofetz Chaim. He writes that the heter to speak lashon harah for benefit only applies if the speaker doesn't intend to debase his fellow man – but if he means to speak negatively then it is prohibited even if is beneficial. He also writes that if he speaks negatively about a sinner and he himself is guilty of that sin – he does not have a heter to speak. These two halachos seem to contradict the principle that negative speech said for benefit is permitted because it isn't lashon harah. Why should it make a difference what the speaker's intent is and whether he is righteous or not? These apparent contraditions are removed if it accepted that the foundation of the prohibition of lashon harah is because of concern for the speaker's character. 

[Whether in fact motivation for saying something beneficial determines if there is a heter - involves the  machlokes of the Sma and Taz which will be discussed in another post]

Lashon Harah and preventing Harm

Vayikra (19:16): Don't spread gossip amongst your people. Don't stand idly by the blood of your fellow. I am G‑d

Chazon Ish(2:133): Knowledge about a talmid chachom who shapes yiddishkeit is similar to that of an artisan. Just as one is permitted to convey accurate information about an artisan if there is to'eles so it it permitted to reveal information about a gadol if there is to'eles. Of critical importance is to be totally accurate otherwise it is slander. This implies that expressing negative information about others is relevant for those who are considered influential authorities – in order to understand the degree to rely on them.

Rabbeinu Yonah(Mishlei 24:28): Don’t be a gratuitous witness of your fellow man – ...This principle is stated in Berachos (19a), If you see a talmid chachom sinning at night, do not suspect of him of sinning anymore by the day because he will surely have repented by then. Since he has the reputation of a person who is fearful of sinning and he is upset and regrets that his lust overcame him. However if the talmid chachom is in fact a wicked person who is mistakenly thought by the people to be righteous – he is not only to be criticized to those who know how to keep quiet – but in fact it is a mitzva to publicize his deeds until they are well known to the public. That is because severe harm occurs when wicked people are honored because he will turn many away from the proper path and denigrate the honor of the righteous and encourages sinning. There is in fact profanation of G‑d’s name by honoring the wicked because some people will be aware of the sins the wicked do and will concluded that there is nothing wrong with sinning and that it doesn’t lower one’s stature (Yoma 86b)…

Rav Moshe Sternbuch(Teshuvos v'hanhagos 1:839): Question: A a teacher asks his students to reveal who did something wrong. - is this permitted? Answer: It would seem that the teacher first has to say to his student that the prohibition of lashon harah is very severe. However since this is l'toeles there is no prohibition of lashon harah. (See Chofetz Chaim 4 and the statement of the Alter of Kelm in Marpeh Lashon said in the name of Rav Yisroel Salanter with clear proofs that whatever is for to'eles is not prohibited as lashon harah). In this case it is clearly for the benefit of the chinuch of the student and therefore there is no concern that this is lashon harah. In fact just the opposite because just as there is a prohibition to speak negatively about others - there is an obligation to inform the teacher so that he is able to properly chastise the student and thus it is not considered lashon harah at all.

Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Lashon Harah 4:10):  Nevertheless if a person sees someone who has bad midos such as conceit, anger, or other bad personality traits or the person isn't concerned about studying Torah etc. then it is correct to tell his son or his students to avoid associating with such a person in order that they not learn his bad midos. That is because the basis of the prohibition of lashon harah - which applies to even if it is truth - is intent to degrade another person and rejoice in his debasement. However if his intent is to guard his fellow man from learning from his bad deeds - then it is clearly permitted and in fact it is a mitzva to convey this [negative] information to others. However in these cases and similar ones it would seem that it is a mitzva for the one conveying the negative information to explain the reason why he is saying these negative things about another person. That is so the listener will not err and assume that negative comments in general are permitted. Furthermore so that the listener will not be astonished that the speaker seems to be a hypocrite in that sometimes he prohibits lashon harah even when true (see clall 9) because it is an important mitzva to keep his children from sin. and yet he is himself is now saying negative things about others...

Chofetz Chaim (Be’er Mayim Chaim Hilchos Rechilus 9:3): Requiring that the motivation to speak rechilus is for a beneficial goal (to’eles) - doesn’t’ mean that if he doesn’t have this motivation that he is automatically exempt from communicating the necessary information to the person in danger. That is because he still has to fulfill the obligation of “not standing idly by the blood of his fellow.” This also applies to saving someone from financial loss. Look at Rashi (Sanhedrin 73a). This requirement of to’eles for permitting speaking negative words means only that he should try and force himself do it for a benefit and not because he hates the person. Otherwise he will be violating the prohibition of rechilus.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef (Yechava Daas 4:60): … In fact this is the way to understand the verse regarding lashon harah. “Do not speak lashon harah but don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” Even though there is a prohibition of lashon harah, nevertheless the second clause of the verse tells you that it is conditional on this not causing harm. Therefore you are obligated to inform others regarding certain matters in order to them to guard against loss and danger. This is expressed in Nidah (61a) that even though it is prohibited to listen to lashon harah but you should protect yourself from the potential danger you hear about. The Rambam (Mitzva 297) says that protecting another’s money is also included in “don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” … Therefore even if there is only a financial loss, one should inform your fellow man in order that he can protect himself from those who want to harm him. And surely when there is a possible danger to an individual or a group.... 

Malbim (Vayikra 19:16.41): Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow - The literal meaning of the verse is that if you see someone in danger – do not stand by but rather make a serious effort to save him…. However the association in this verse of not speaking lashon harah teaches us that even though we are prohibited to speak lashon harah, nevertheless if you know testimony that can help another - even though it involves lashon harah and breaking confidentiality – it is necessary to reveal the information and to testify. This is true even though revealing secrets is prohibited as lashon harah.

Netziv (Vayikra 19:16): Even though there is a clear prohibition in this verse against lashon harah, nevertheless this is conditional on “not standing idly by the blood of others.” In other words if you know that there is someone who wants to harm another then you are obligated to inform the intended victim and it is prohibited to stand idly by and let it happen.

Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 19:16): The prohibition of lashon harah is conditional on whether not speaking will not cause harm to another. If you see a group that wants to kill people then you are obligated to notify the potential victims so that they can save themselves. One should not keep silent by saying that you don’t want to speak lashon harah. Thus we learn that if you don’t notify the potential victim and he is killed that you have nullified this mitzva of not standing idly by the blood of others. We learn this from the incident of Gedaliah who was warned of danger but did not pay attention to the warning.

Shulchan Aruch(C.M. 426:1): If you see someone drowning in the sea or being attacked by bandits or wild animals and it is possible to save him by yourself or to pay others to save him and yet you don’t save him or alternatively you hear non‑Jews or informers plotting to do him harm and yet you don’t inform him or alternatively you know that non‑Jews or bandits are planning to attack him and you are able dissuade them and yet you don’t or other such scenarios – you are violating “do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow (Vayikra 19:16).

Rav Elochon Wasserman (Kovetz Ha’aros Yevamos #70): ...It would seem that all that is prohibited between people (bein adam l’chavero) is only prohibited when done in a harmful and destructive manner without justification. For example regarding the prohibition of “Not hating your brother.” This is only prohibited for gratuitous hatred (sinas chinom). In other words when he is not doing anything wrong (davar ervah). However if he is doing something wrong then it is permitted to hate him. It is important to note that the reason for hatred being permitted in this case is not because of the fact that a sinful person is not considered your “brother.” Tosfos (Pesachim 113b) explains that if you hate this sinful person for another reason then you transgress the prohibition. The hatred is only permitted because of the bad (davar ervah) that you see in him. Similarly regarding the prohibition of beating another, the Rambam writes that it is prohibited only if done as fighting (derech netzoyan). This is clear from the fact that it is permitted for a teacher to his student. And this that we noted before in Sanhedrin (84b) – that is only a rabbinic restriction. And similarly concerning the prohibition of causing anguish to a widow or orphan, Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) writes that if it is done to teach Torah or a trade – there is no prohibition. Similarly concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, it is permitted against people who cause discord and quarrels in order to stop the fight. Similar concerning using words to cause anguish (onas devarim), it is permitted publicly criticize someone publicly if it is for the sake of chastisement. It is even permitted to publicly embarrass someone if it is done for the necessity of chastisement for a person who has not stopped his bad behavior after being rebuked in private. In such a case it is even permissible to curse him. In fact this is what was done by the prophets in the past as the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:8) notes. We thus shown from all this, that all the prohibition involving interpersonal actions do not apply when the act is beneficial.

 Chinuch (236): We are required not to gossip about others as the Torah says (Vayikra 19:16) "You shall not be a tale-bearer." The idea is that if we hear someone say something bad about a friend, we should not tell them "Someone is saying such and such about you" unless our intent is to prevent damage or to stop a fight....

Pischei Tshuva (O.C. 156): I want to note here that while all the books of mussar are greatly concerned about the sin of lashon harah, I am greatly concerned about the opposite problem. I want to protest about the even greater and more common sin of refraining from speaking negatively when it is necessary to save someone from being harmed. For example if you saw a person waiting in ambush to kill someone or breaking into someone’s house or store at night. Is it conceivable that you would refrain from notifying the intended victim to protect himself from the assailant - because of the prohibition of speaking lashon harah?  By not saying anything you commit the unbearable sin of transgressing the prohibition of Vayikra (19:16): Do not speak lashon harah [but] do not stand idly by when the blood of your fellow man is threatened? By not speaking up, you violate the mitzva of returning that which is lost to its owner Devarim (22:2). Now if you can understand the obvious necessity of speaking up in these cases then what is the difference between a robber breaking into someone’s house or store or seeing that his servants are secretly stealing from him or that his partner is deceiving him in their business or that another person is cheating him in commerce or that he is lending money to someone that you know doesn’t repay? How is this different from stopping a proposed marriage to someone you know is a wicked person who would be a horrible husband…. From where do we get the mistaken idea that in the case of murder, I will speak up but that it is prohibited to say anything in other situations where someone is being harmed?…

Hatzaloh and use of goyim to avoid violating Shabbos

 When I lived in Brooklyn I davened on Shabbos at the shul of Rav Dovid Cohen who served as the posek of Hatzaloh. He would always ask Rav Moshe the big issues. I Remember one Shabbos he spoke saying he had just asked Rav Moshe whether they needed to use goyim to avoid violating Shabbos. He said that Rav Moshe had emphatically said no because a goy is not as concerned about saving a jew as a Jew is and the delay in treatment might be fatal. He said he never saw Rav Moshe so angry because he was so upset about the question

Luck of the Irish

 There was once an Irish cop who served as a volunteer for the Williamsburg hatzaloh. One Saturday he had a heart attack. So he called hatzalaoh for help. Fortunately for him he dialed the wrong number. He dialed the hatzaloh of the East Side which was under Rav Moshe and they sent help and he was saved. If he had gotten through to Williamsburg they followed the view of the Mishna Berura and would not have saved him

Trump Sparks MAGA Backlash Over Earlier Warning to States About Israel

 https://www.newsweek.com/israel-boycotts-donald-trump-maga-response-fema-2108785

The Trump administration drew the fury of some of the president's staunchest supporters when Reuters reported that Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) funds would be denied to states and cities that boycott Israeli companies.

The blowback highlights a broader fissure within the Republican Party between hawkish lawmakers who support sending more aid and weapons to Israel and isolationist MAGA influencers who oppose the U.S. becoming more involved in conflicts in the Middle East.

Monday, August 4, 2025

‘No president’s ever read it this way’: Trump faces major legal challenge over tariff justification

From a souring economy to Epstein, Trump 'isn't fixing anything. This is gaslighting.

Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz: Trump firing BLS head ‘like driving a car with no odometer'

Trump Admin Broke Rules to Move Ghislaine to Club Fed Camp

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/snitch-ghislaines-prison-move-was-due-to-death-threats/

Convicted child sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell secured a secret prison transfer after the Bureau of Prisons waived a rule designated to punish sex offenders.

Maxwell, alleged sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein‘s accomplice, has spent the last three years serving a 20-year sentence at a federal prison in Tallahassee, Florida.

Trump defends firing labor statistics chief after weak jobs report

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5434438-trump-defends-firing-labor-statistics-chief

Trump’s decision to fire the labor statistics head over the jobs report sparked immediate blowback on Capitol Hill, with Democrats accusing the White House of going after the messenger and attempting to silence those detailing a weak labor market during his tenure.

Making a Palestinian State Less Likely

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/palestinian-state-gaza-hamas-u-k-france-canada-israel-894e8a3f?mod=hp_opin_pos_4

The Gaza aid crunch is starting to abate, as local prices fall. Why are Gazans paying for aid at all? Well, the United Nations says 87% of the aid trucks that it and its partners have tried to deliver since May 19 have been “intercepted” by mobs or “armed actors.” Much of the food ends up sold at market, with Hamas taking a cut. The U.N. rejects Israeli security escorts.

The U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, which gives free aid to Gazans at large distribution sites, has been shunned by the established aid groups. This has hindered GHF efforts to scale up—the best way to shrink the crowds at each site. For now, large masses must trek past Israel Defense Forces lines to reach these sites, while Hamas instigates stampedes. Much hunger in Gaza has been concentrated in the north, where there are no GHF sites.

Sunday, August 3, 2025

Hatzala return to home in car on Shabbos after they complete their life saving task?

 Igros Moshe (O. C. IV #80) Question: A volunteer in the Hatzala organization who leaves his home to save a life on Shabbos when can he return home? Answer: It is a great thing that they do and there is no need to delay and have a non Jew do this.  The main question is if he goes by car to minimize delay. If we require that he wait to the end of Shabbos to return by car, there is concern that it reduces the likelihood he will be available to save another person on Shabbos  Tosfos has a principle that we allow things sometimes to avoid an undersirable consequence of prohibition regarding saving life.  Rambam also rules that someone who goes to rescue his fellow Jew from attack on Shabbos is permitted to return home afterwards with his weapons on Shabbos in order to ensure that in the future people will be willing to help on Shabbos. 

Trump’s mental decline is undeniable — so what now?

 https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/5429516-trump-confabulation-dementia-signs

For Trump, the day we could no longer pretend everything is fine came on July 15, when he told a lengthy story about his uncle, John Trump, who he claimed taught at MIT and held three degrees in “nuclear, chemical, and math.” His uncle, according to Trump, once told him how he had taught Ted Kaczynski, the Unabomber, and how very smart Kaczynski was.

Trump’s uncle was indeed a professor at MIT, but everything else in this story is pure confabulation. Trump’s uncle didn’t have degrees in “nuclear, chemical, and math” — he had degrees in electrical engineering and physics. And Kaczynski did not go to MIT at all — he went to Harvard.

Difficulty with mathematical concepts is another early warning sign of dementia. Now watch Trump attempting to explain how he is going to make drug prices go down by “1,000 percent, 600 percent, 500 percent, 1,500 percent.” That’s complete nonsense, unless drug companies will be paying patients to accept prescriptions, since reducing drug prices by 100 percent would mean they were free. Certainly, someone who got a business degree from Wharton and has spent his life running a company would know how percentages work.

Or take his insistence that former President Obama and his FBI director, James Comey, made up the Epstein files, even though they were long out of office by the time Epstein was most recently arrested in 2019. Again, that’s very troubling, because being unable to correctly process when past events took place is a common feature in confabulation. The same goes for being unable to remember that he himself appointed Jerome Powell as the chair of the federal reserve. And then, of course, there are all the little lapses in judgment that Trump has been displaying recently. 

Donald Trump is showing all the signs of suffering from dementia. If this were a neighbor, a parent, or a family friend, you would have no trouble seeing it. We should not turn our heads just because it is the president. 

'Stupidest take yet': Piers Morgan under fire over post on Hamas

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/412654

British journalist Piers Morgan caused an uproar on Saturday after publishing a controversial post on X in the aftermath of the video of hostage Evyatar David which was published by Hamas.

“It’s interesting that all the prominent pro-Israeli voices on here who refuse to believe any Gazan casualty numbers published by the Hamas-run Palestinian health ministry, accept the veracity of hostage pix/videos posted by Hamas without hesitation,” Morgan wrote.

Holocaust as entertainment

 https://mishpacha.com/a-fraught-legacy/#:~:text=Yoni’s%20Adventures%20on,more%20than%20that

Yoni’s Adventures on October the 7th by Ricky Boles

A comic series about a boy named Yoni. The story opens on Simchas Torah morning. Yoni is still asleep when Hamas terrorists infiltrate his kibbutz. In a heart-pounding sequence of panels, he hatches a daring plan to rescue his baby sister before he’s taken hostage to Gaza. Through a mix of brilliance, bravery, and sheer mazel, Yoni escapes his captors, saves other children from the tunnels along the way, and returns to Eretz Yisrael as a hero.

Of course no such comic exists.

That would be outrageous.

And yet, in the car on my way to Brooklyn last week, I found myself sitting through a different outrageous tale — one that is in circulation, is widely consumed, and is proudly marketed as frum entertainment.

This story was about a clever boy outwitting KGB agents with a series of tricks and deceptions. My kids were cackling at the slapstick dialogue and exaggerated villains, while I sat there thinking: What would those who lived through this say? So many Yidden spent years, terrified, under Communist rule. Would they smile as they listened to this story? Or would they marvel at how far removed we are from the actual fear, brutality, and helplessness that defined those years?

The storytellers, the publishers, the creative directors are shaping our children’s historical knowledge — and in some cases, they’re distorting it. When we hand our kids a beautifully illustrated comic book, or CDs with suspenseful music, and illiterate-sounding Nazis, we rob them of the truth.

We blunt their sense of empathy. And we risk raising a generation that confuses gezeiros Shamayim with entertainment.

We owe our children, and our grandparents, more than that.

Who Is Starving for the Truth?

 https://mishpacha.com/who-is-starving-for-the-truth

It’s hard to protest your innocence when you act guilty.

That’s Israel’s dilemma. It half-heartedly denies accusations from a coordinated international campaign that Israel is starving Gazans instead of forcefully refuting these claims, many of which are based on staged scenes, AI-generated images, or unrelated file photos. Then, Israel rewards Hamas’s intransigence by declaring a unilateral ceasefire for ten hours a day to allow in humanitarian aid. Meanwhile, the terrorist group still holds 20 Jewish hostages, who are subject to deprivation far worse than what any Gazan is experiencing.

Friday, August 1, 2025

Failing on the 8th front: The mounting cost of Israel’s dysfunctional public diplomacy

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/failing-on-the-8th-front-the-mounting-cost-of-israels-dysfunctional-public-diplomacy

While it fights Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen and groups in the West Bank, Syria and Iraq, Israel is also engaged in an information war — and on that battlefield, it is losing.

Major international news outlets have increasingly portrayed Israel as a heartless aggressor in Gaza, running front-page images of skeletal children suffering starvation in the Strip.

Evidence showing that some of them were misleading or staged has done little to repair Israel’s image.

On Monday alone, US President Donald Trump, his deputy JD Vance, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer all cited these viral images in their calls for drastic policy changes in Gaza.

Donald Trump Gets Asked Why Jeffrey Epstein 'Stole' Girls From Mar-a-Lago

 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-asked-why-jeffrey-epstein-stole-girls-mar-lago-2107297

Earlier this week, Trump was asked on board Air Force One whether one of the workers "stolen" from Mar-a-Lago was Giuffre. Trump responded, "I don't know. I think she worked at the spa. I think so, I think that was one of the people, yep. He stole her, and by the way she had no complaints about us, as you know, none whatsoever."

Giuffre's family reacted to Trump's comment on Wednesday, calling his remarks "shocking."

"It was shocking to hear President Trump invoke our sister and say that he was aware that Virginia had been 'stolen' from Mar-a-Lago," the family said in the statement.

"We would like to clarify that it was convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell who targeted and preyed upon our then 16-year-old sister, Virginia, from Mar-a-Lago, where she was working in 2000, several years before Epstein and President Trump had their falling out," Giuffre's family said.

"The government and the President should never consider giving Ghislaine Maxwell any leniency," the family added.

Thursday, July 31, 2025

Trump tirade against Grassley irritates Republican senators

 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/5428518-gop-senators-defend-grassley

Republican senators were appalled by President Trump’s rough treatment of 91-year-old Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa), the Senate’s most senior Republican, on social media and are pushing back on Trump’s attempts to squeeze the senator into abolishing an arcane procedure known as the Senate blue slip.

GOP senators were not pleased that Trump piled so much pressure on Grassley, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, to get rid of a long-established Senate tradition. Trump piled on by reposting on Truth Social posts accusing Grassley of being a “RINO” and “sneaky” and standing in the way of Trump’s agenda.

Nicolle Wallace reacts to Trump saying Epstein ‘stole’ people from Mar-A-Lago

Wednesday, July 30, 2025

Lashon HaRah – Asking Students to inform on others

Igros Moshe (YD II #103) Question: Is it permissible for a teacher to ask his students to inform him  who did something wrong? Answer  This is a disgusting thing since it causes that they are lenient about speaking lashon harah. This is similar to what G-d said to Yehoshua “Am I an informer?” If this is asked for the purpose of chastising the student for pure reasons in order that the misbehaving student  will be punished and reform his ways it might be permitted. But that is relevant where the student takes the initiative for the sake of a fellow student and not where the teacher demands that the students inform on the perpetrator. Such is disgusting even if the students are great Torah scholars. Thus for us it can not be considered pure motivation for adults and surely not for children. 

Igros Moshe (YD II #103) Question: Is it permissible to punish students  in a manner that interferes with their Torah studies? Answer It is certainly not permitted since it is definitely harmful to them while the possible benefit is  highly doubtful. Therefore a different punishment should be used

Igros Moshe (YD IV #30.1) Question: Explaining why asking students to inform on each other is disgusting an d encourages them to be lenient about lashon hara when it seems it is a useful request? Answer  I said it is permitted if done solely for giving proper chastisement and only if the student takes the initiative to inform the teacher to properly chastise the misbehaving student. When the teacher demands that they inform he is being lenient with the severe prohibition of lashon hara. The teacher can explain the seriousnouss of the misbehaving even without punishing the misbehaving student. Even if he can’t he still is not allowed to encourage lashon hara 

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos VeHanhagos 1:839)  Question: If a teacher tells his students to inform him who misbehaved can they tell him? Answer It seems to me that the teacher first has to explain to them that the sin of lashon hara is a very serious sin. However if the information serves a useful purpose it is not considered lashon harah. In this case since it is for the good of the proper education of the student, thus there is no problem of lashon harah. In fact the opposite is true. Just as it is prohibited to speak lashon harah about another person, there is an obligation  to inform the teacher so that he can properly chastise  and this is not lashon harah at all. I heard that this is described in the Igros Moshe as a disgusting thing and that it causes the students to take the prohibition of lason harah lightly. I don’t see that there is such a concern. Nevertheless the teacher needs to explain to the children what constitutes lashon harah and that the present case is not lashon hara since it is for a beneficial purpose. 

A Critical Examination of Garnel Ironheart’s Approach to Torah and Torah Gedolim A Guest Post

 Conclusion

Garnel Ironheart’s approach to Torah and Torah Gedolim is deeply flawed, characterized by a dismissive attitude toward rabbinic authority, selective engagement with sources, and a divisive tone that undermines communal unity. His prioritization of individual reasoning over established psak, coupled with a tendency to trivialize tradition, risks eroding the sanctity of Torah scholarship. While he raises valid concerns about excessive stringencies, his critiques lack the nuance and respect exemplified by Gedolim who navigate these challenges with humility and rigor. For those seeking a deeper connection to Torah, Ironheart’s writings offer a cautionary tale of how skepticism, when unchecked, can lead to a fragmented and diminished understanding of Jewish tradition.

A Critical Examination of Garnel Ironheart’s Approach to Torah and Torah Gedolim

Garnel Ironheart, a blogger known for his outspoken commentary on Judaism, Israel, and politics, presents a perspective on Torah and Torah Gedolim that often diverges from traditional Orthodox frameworks. His writings, as seen on his blog, reveal a pattern of skepticism toward established rabbinic authority and a selective approach to Torah interpretation that raises significant concerns. This guest post critically examines Ironheart’s methodology, arguing that his approach undermines the integrity of Torah scholarship, dismisses the wisdom of Torah Gedolim, and promotes a fragmented view of Jewish tradition that risks alienating adherents from the broader Orthodox community.

Disregard for Rabbinic Authority

Ironheart’s writings frequently challenge the authority of Torah Gedolim, portraying their rulings as overly rigid or outdated. For instance, in his discussion of halachic practices, he suggests that contemporary observance is burdened by excessive stringencies (chumros) and customs (minhagim) that complicate adherence to Torah law. He nostalgically references a simpler era of Jewish practice, implying that modern rabbinic interpretations have unnecessarily encumbered religious life. This perspective dismisses the nuanced development of halacha, which Gedolim like the Chazon Ish and Rav Moshe Feinstein have meticulously preserved through rigorous analysis of Talmudic sources and responsa. By framing their contributions as obstacles, Ironheart undermines the scholarly depth that ensures halacha’s adaptability and relevance.

Moreover, Ironheart’s critique of specific rabbinic figures, such as his remarks on Rav Hershel Schachter’s opposition to women wearing tefillin, reveals a tendency to prioritize personal reasoning over established psak (halachic rulings). He champions a form of “evidence-based” halacha, likening it to modern methodologies like Evidence-Based Medicine, which suggests a reliance on individual analysis over deference to Gedolim. This approach risks reducing the complex interplay of tradition, precedent, and communal consensus to a mere academic exercise, ignoring the spiritual and historical weight of rabbinic authority. By elevating his own interpretations, Ironheart implicitly questions the legitimacy of Gedolim who dedicate their lives to preserving Torah’s sanctity.

Selective Engagement with Torah Sources

Ironheart’s treatment of Torah texts further highlights his problematic approach. He frequently engages with Torah and Talmudic sources selectively, using them to support his arguments while dismissing interpretations that conflict with his views. For example, in addressing the Documentary Hypothesis—a theory he rejects—Ironheart argues that textual irregularities in the Torah serve as hints to the Oral Law, a position aligned with traditional commentators like Rashi and the Netziv. Yet, his dismissal of academic critiques as mere “apologetics” reveals a lack of intellectual rigor. Rather than engaging with scholarly challenges to explore their implications, he summarily rejects them, suggesting a reluctance to grapple with complex questions that might challenge his worldview.

This selective engagement extends to his discussions of halachic disputes. In posts addressing issues like the Samaritan Torah or tikunei Sofrim (scribal corrections), Ironheart acknowledges minor textual variations but insists they lack halachic significance unless they alter legal outcomes. This criterion, while pragmatic, oversimplifies the intricate relationship between the Written and Oral Torahs. Gedolim like Rav SR Hirsch emphasize that every letter and nuance in the Torah carries divine intent, a principle Ironheart glosses over in his rush to minimize textual discrepancies. His approach risks trivializing the sanctity of the Torah’s text, reducing it to a functional document rather than a divine blueprint.

Erosion of Communal Unity

Ironheart’s writings often promote a vision of Judaism that prioritizes individual interpretation over communal cohesion. His critique of Chareidi practices, such as separate seating on El Al flights, mocks the concerns of a significant segment of the Orthodox community. By framing such practices as excessive, he alienates those who adhere to stricter interpretations, fostering division rather than dialogue. Torah Gedolim, from the Rambam to the Vilna Gaon, have consistently emphasized the importance of communal unity in preserving Jewish identity. Ironheart’s dismissive tone undermines this principle, encouraging a fragmented Orthodoxy where personal preferences trump collective responsibility.

Furthermore, his commentary on social issues, such as his critique of “frummer than thou” attitudes, often veers into caricature. While he rightly points out the dangers of performative piety, his blanket generalizations about observant Jews—particularly those in stricter communities—lack nuance. This approach contrasts sharply with the measured critiques of Gedolim like Rav Yonasan Rosenblum, who address communal flaws while affirming the value of diverse practices. Ironheart’s failure to engage constructively with differing perspectives risks alienating readers who might otherwise benefit from a more balanced discourse.

Undermining the Sanctity of Tradition

Perhaps most concerning is Ironheart’s tendency to question the sanctity of longstanding Jewish traditions. His nostalgic references to a “simpler” Judaism, free from modern complexities like muktzeh or tumah and taharah, betray a misunderstanding of how halacha evolves to meet contemporary needs. Gedolim have historically adapted Torah law to new realities, as seen in the responsa of the Chatam Sofer, who navigated the challenges of modernity while upholding tradition. Ironheart’s suggestion that such adaptations complicate observance ignores the careful balance Gedolim strike between innovation and fidelity.

Additionally, his casual tone when discussing sacred concepts—referring to Torah study as less rigorous than secular pursuits or mocking Chareidi sensitivities—diminishes the reverence due to Torah and its scholars. This contrasts with the approach of Gedolim like Rav Aharon Lichtenstein, who combined intellectual rigor with profound respect for tradition. Ironheart’s flippant style risks normalizing a cavalier attitude toward Torah, potentially leading readers to undervalue its divine origin.