Britain raised its national terrorism threat level to "severe" from "substantial" on Thursday, a day after an antisemitic attack in London was declared a terrorist incident by police.
The attack that unfolded in Golders Green, a predominantly Jewish area in the capital, saw two Jewish men taken to hospital with stab wounds. A 45-year-old man has been charged with attempted murder.
“Britain’s Jewish community suffered yet another vile terrorist attack,” U.K. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said, noting that this is just the latest instance of antisemitism to unfold in recent months.
The government has announced an extra £25 million in funding to go towards protecting Jewish communities and there are plans for increased security, but Starmer is facing calls to do more.
The Rise of Antisemitism in the U.K. Daf Hayomi today: Chullin 10a:
ReplyDeleteRava raises an objection to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda to support the opinion of Rav Huna, from a baraita: If one immersed and emerged from the ritual bath and an interposing item was later found on him, then even if he had been engaged in handling that same type of item for the entire day after his immersion, the immersion does not fulfill his obligation. This is so until he will say: It is clear to me that this interposition was not on me beforehand. And here it is a case where he certainly immersed, and it is uncertain whether the interposition was on him at that time and uncertain whether it was not on him, and nevertheless, contrary to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda, the uncertainty overrides the certainty. The Gemara rejects that proof: It is different there, as it can be said: Establish the status of the impure person on the basis of his presumptive status of impurity, and say that he did not immerse properly. The Gemara challenges: Here too, establish the status of the animal on the basis of its presumptive status of prohibition and say that it was not slaughtered properly. Why does Rav Ḥisda rule that it is permitted?
Beautiful. The halacha: Immersion is valid when man or woman says: It is clear to me that this interposition was not on me beforehand.
Hey, applies to my case. I married Yemima May 9, 1993 and made a new contract with TIAA: I get 100% my TIAA pension with Yemima beneficiary. Yes TIAA paid me $750 monthly in 1993 and from that I sent $125 checks to Susan child support for 6 our children in Brooklyn. My lawyer Ian Anderson and I sent documents to TIAA, to NY courts etc (The Rabbi Ralbag and Jerusalem Court etc). TIAA must go back to the status of 1993 paying me 100% of my TIAA pension. TIAA and Susan want to wait wait wait for a NY court ruling on the matter. Fine, I make new motions monthly, for every month TIAA pays me only 45%. It is clear to me that I’m entitled to 100% my pension.