Tzach’s wife Sarit Tzach wrote on Facebook that her husband had gone to the beach on Monday after work so that he could document the sharks, and denied reports that he had been carrying dead fish that attracted the predator.
Igros Moshe (OC I #111) Question Can a wristwatch on Shabbos? Answer It is obvious that a pocket watch is prohibited. Even those that are worn attached to clothing are not regarded as jewlry or being worn. However a wristwatch that is actually on the wrist is like a garment. A proof that this is permitted is that a signet ring is permitted even though its use is prohibitd on Shabbos. Furthermore even if the signet ring is damaged and can’t be used for signatures it is permitted to br worn since it is worn on the body even though it is not viewed as a piece of jewlry. Its entire purpose is as a useful device. In a similar manner a scarf which is worn around the neck to clean the mouth and eyes (according to Rashi) and that is its basic reasoson for being worn. Thus it is merely the fact that it is useful that it is permitted to be worn and it is not considered carrying. Thus a watch worn on the wrist should be permitted even though it is only worn for the service it provides. While because of this reason there is no reason to protest against those who wear a wristwatch, it is appropriate for every ben Torah and G-d fearing man not to wear a wristwatch on Shabbos. This is to prevent others from thinking that all clocks (such as a pocket watch) are permitted even if attatched to the clothing. Because there is widespread ignorance and this is what I tell my students.
Igros Moshe (E.H. IV #65.22): Question What is the minimum time that yichud is prohibited? Answer Acording to Chazal it is the time it takes for sexual intercourse (Sotah 4), however time needs to be added to this for additional preparations such as getting undressed and getting dressed and also time for seduction if they are strangers and thus it is difficult to state a definite amount of time. Nevertheless even with a woman who is easily seduced the time of prohibited yichud is much more than the time for intercourse even if she is not Jewish who also require seduction. This is true even if she is a prostitute. . . Thus the amount of time prohibited is much greater than the all the times spent traveling between floors in an elevator even in a building of 25 floors. However with a non-Jewish woman controlling the elevator who we assume is licentious and with whom he is already familiar he should not take long trips with her in the elevator. However this is not a common situation. If there are two women in the elevator than yichud is not prohibited since we are not concerned he might seduce both of them in a short time and therefore there will not be transgression even with one of the two women .
Igros Moshe (EH IV #65.16) Question Is yichud always prohibited? Answer There is no prohibition unless if lasts longer than the time prohibited. However in an elevator if someone enters who thinks any amount of time is prohibited than yichud would be prohibited. In such a case the only permitted case would be where there are already two women in the elevator and one leaves even if there is less than the minimal time. This is a problem also for tall buildings of many floors with an elevator . If a man is alone in the elevator with a woman, than going one floor is not a problem. The prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman is only Rabbinic and the decree against yichud is only if there is enough time for intercourse. For anything less than this time there is no prohibition of yichud .
Igros Moshe (EH IV #65.3) Question Is it permitted to travel alone with a woman in a car ? Answer As a first choice is definitely not permitted. This is even if the majority of the trip is on a major highway that even at night there are always many people in cars. That is because it is always possible to leave the highway to a quiet side street. Even travel during the day is problematic since he can easily go to a secluded area and be intimate and this is clearly a concern at night where intimacy can easily occur in the car itself. Nevertheless in time of great need such as a woman of his neighborhood requests a ride or needs to get to his destination and if he refuses to give her a ride he is viewed as a selfish or cruel person. If a non Jewish women makes the request and he refuses than he might cause hatred to Jews. Therefore there is a basis to permit it because there is no halachic requirement to be concerned that he might go to a secluded place with a normal religious person but only that he might be overwhelmed with lust. While this seems to be a halachic dispute, one can rely on the lenient view in time of need.
When I lived in Har Nof I met with Rav Ephraim Greenblatt in July 12 1990. I asked him questions regarding Rav Moshe and the Igros Moshe. He was very open with his comments. The question is whether I should publish them now. They might shock some while others will say this is well known or at least assumed. I have asked a posek and am waiting his decision.
I just received psak that I should publish the interview. which I will when I reformat it for greater readability.
---------------------------------------------------------
It is important to know that others such as Rav Menashe Klein disagreed. Rav Ahron Kuler also disagreed but he said to all that asked that the halacha was that it was prohibited because everyone should submit to the ruling of Rav Moshe
Avos Derav Nosson (36:5) These seven have no share in the World to Come: the scribe, the schoolteacher, the best doctors, the city judge, the magician, the sexton, and the butcher.
Shabbos (139a) It was taught. R. Jose b. Elisha said: If you see a generation overwhelmed by many troubles, go forth and examine the judges of Israel, for all retribution that comes to the world comes only on account of the Judges of Israel, as it is said, Hear this, I pray you ye heads of the house of Jacob, and rulers of the house of Israel, that abhor judgment, and pervert all equity. They build up Zion with blood and Jerusalem with iniquity. The heads thereof judge for reward, and the priests thereof teach for hire, and the prophets thereof divine for money; yet will they lean upon the Lord, etc
Kiddushin (82a) The best of doctors are destined for gehenna, and the worthiest of butchers is amalek's partner
Rashi (Kiddushin 82a) 'The best of doctors are destined for gehenna' - They do not fear disease. They eat the food of the healthy, and they do not act humbly before God. Sometimes they kill, and sometimes they are able to heal a poor person but do not do so.
Sheailas Yaavetz (# 71) This that you view the statement in Avos DeRabbi Nosson as difficult as smoke in the eyes or vinegar to the teeth since it says that a person who renders judgements and decides halacha has no Olam Habah. I have previously explained this in my commentary to the Talmud. It simply means that these seven have no Olam Habah only when they don’t do their jobs properly, which in fact most of them do in fact act properly.
Now, a new study published in Current Neuropharmacology has sounded the alarm on potential mental health risks associated with GLP-1 agonists. The research shows how these drugs may interact with genes involved in mood regulation and dopamine signalling, including DRD3, BDNF, and CREB1—genes linked to depression, anxiety, and suicidal ideation.
Israeli police on Tuesday scoured the Mediterranean coast for a swimmer they fear may have been attacked by a shark in an area that has long seen close encounters between marine predators and beachgoers who sometimes seek them out.
A shiver of endangered dusky and sandbar sharks has been swimming close to the area for years, attracting onlookers who approach the sharks, drawing pleas from conservation groups for authorities to separate people from the wild animal.
On Tuesday, the beach was closed as search teams used boats and underwater equipment to look for the man. His identity was not immediately known, but Israeli media said he had gone to swim with the sharks.
A jury in New York ruled Tuesday that The New York Times did not defame former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) with an editorial about gun violence in 2011.
Tuesday’s ruling comes nearly three years after a separate jury found the Times not liable for damages over the op-ed, which linked her to the deadly 2011 shooting in an Arizona parking lot that injured then-Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.).
Igros Moshe (YD III #132) The definition of when a person is dead is stated explicitly in the gemora (Yoma 85a) in the case where a person is buried under a pile of rubble. It says he can be dug out even on Shabbos and then his nostrils are examined to determine if he is still breathing. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule that if breathing is not detected he is considered dead. Thus we determine death by the absence of breathing. Even if the breathing is very slight he is considered alive. This can readily be determined with the aid of a feather placed near the nostrils. If the feather or a small piece of paper doesn’t move at all, he is presumed dead. Nevertheless he should be examined a number of times as I have explained previously to ensure he hasn’t just fainted because it is impossible to live without breathing. This test is valid only if the person is under constant watching. However since this is not realistic and it is possible he regained his strength a bit and was able to briefly get a few weak breathes it is impossible to properly determine death except by repeated testing. If these tests reveal there is no breathing at all than that is a sign the person is dead. This is more fully discussed by the Chasam Sofer. This is also relevant with the typical sick person who is close to dying, but is not dependent on a respirator. However there are many sick people who can not breathe without a respirator. Thus it is possible with a respirator to continue breathing even after death and these people are not considered alive. If it is not clear that he is alive from other indicators e.,g. he doesn’t respond even if stabbed with a needle such as being in a state known as a coma. Then as long as the respirator is working it is prohibited to remove it from his mouth because he might be alive and by the removal he is being killed. However when the respirator stops working for example when the oxygen tanks are depleted, it is not required to put him back on the respirator when it starts working for a period of 15 minutes. If he is no longer alive as seen by the absence of breathing then it means he has died. IKn contrast if he is living as can be seen from the fact that he is breathing even without the respirator even if it is with difficulty and interruptions then he should be returned to the respirator immediately. This should be done a number of times until his condition improves or it is apparent that he can’t breathe on his own and is dead.
You say that now there is a test that allows the great doctors to determine by the injection of a special fluid into the veins that can show whether the connection of the body to the brain has been stopped If this fluid does not go to the brain it is clear that the brain is no longer attached to the body and it also indicates the brain is already completely rotted and the patient is considered functionally decapitated. If this is true then we should be strict with those, especially if they don’t feel anything anymore and don’t respond if stuck with a needle and they no longer can breathe independently .to not declare them dead without doing this test. . That means if we see that the brain is still connected to the body even though they can’t breathe without a respirator to keep them on the respirator even for a long time. Thus we should say that the test of independent breathing should be done in conjunction with this test to determine death. This might be relevant also for those who have taken an overdose of sleeping pills or other medication. Until all the medication gets out of the body they can not breathe. In such cases the respirator needs to be connected for longer periods in order to clarify if they are dead since death can not be determined readily as long as the drugs remain in the body.
Igros Moshe (YD II #146) This that doctors say that the sign of of whether a person is alive or dead is in the brain In other words if according to their evaluation of a person if his brain is not working properly then he is considered that he is dead even though he is still breathing. You discuss this at length and try to refute this claim. You also say that the brain does not mean the brain stem at the top of the spine which you claim is irrelevant to this issue. I don’t understand your point. Since you are referring to the brain stem at the top of the spine in your discussion of the gemora in Chullin while the doctors are referring to the brain in the head. Furthermore the gemora is describing a case of where the brain stem is detached while the brain itself remains intact and healthy. If in fact the brain decomposes the animal is a treifa. Similarly if the brain dissolves and flows like water. Even though in general the status of treifa is because eventually the brain cover will be perforated, nevertheless the status of treifa occurs for other conditions both the actual brain and the brain stem. Thus it is possible to say like the doctors if the damage prevents the body from functioning properly it means death. Nevertheless it is certainly true that the brain stopping from working is not what we define as death since as long as there is breathing he is considered alive. It just means that when the brain stops working it will lead to death which is defined as the cessation of breathing. It is possible that since such a person is still alive and that there are known or yet to be discovered medicines that will restore the function of the brain. It is also possible in this case to pray to G-d to cure him. Thus he has the status of a seriously ill person whose life is in danger but he is not considered dead. If he were dead it would be prohibited to pray for him since it is considered a meaningless and worthless prayer. It is also obvious that anyone who killed such a person is considered a murderer and is subject to the death penalty. All this is because there is no mention in the classic sources of the gemora and poskim that the brain status determines whether the person is considered alive. It is not relevant to claim that nature has changed in this issue because even in Talmudic times the brain functioned then as it does now and all of man’s functioning depended on it. Nevertheless it was not considered that the person was considered dead with the cessation of functioning of the brain and so today we don’t either.
This that you say to be lenient if the doctors see the response of the heart in an electric radiogram and declare death.Death is determined solely by the stopping of breathing. You say this is like the situation that we don’t use a microscope to determin the existence of worms in food and we declare kosher food that has worms that are found with a microscope. To utilize the EKG to decide death is wrong. Even though the Chasam Sofer was concerned to observe the body for three days because there was a case of someone who was thought to have died but recovered and lived for 25 years. That is a very rare case. In fact a person can be buried immediately after death after he stops breathing and we don’t concrern ourselves with very rare cases.
It is very clear and obvious that the nose is itself not the source of life and breathing doesn’t depend on the nose. In fact it is the brain and heart that are the source of life. The nose is simply where the breathing takes place and thus it is just a sign og life not the cause. Similarly the heartbeat is only a sign of life. Thus detecting heart activity is not proof of life against the absence of breathing.
Igros Moshe (YD III #132) The definition of when a person is dead is stated explicitly in the gemora (Yoma 85a) in the case where a person is buried under a pile of rubble. It says he can be dug out even on Shabbos and then his nostrils are examined to determine if he is still breathing. Rambam and Shulchan Aruch rule that if breathing is not detected he is considered dead. Thus we determine death by the absence of breathing. Even if the breathing is very slight he is considered alive. This can readily be determined with the aid of a feather placed near the nostrils. If the feather or a small piece of paper doesn’t move at all, he is presumed dead. Nevertheless he should be examined a number of times as I have explained previously to ensure he hasn’t just fainted because it is impossible to live without breathing. This test is valid only if the person is under constant watching. However since this is not realistic and it is possible he regained his strength a bit and was able to briefly get a few weak breathes it is impossible to properly determine death except by repeated testing. If these tests reveal there is no breathing at all than that is a sign the person is dead. This is more fully discussed by the Chasam Sofer. This is also relevant with the typical sick person who is close to dying, but is not dependent on a respirator. However there are many sick people who can not breathe without a respirator. Thus it is possible with a respirator to continue breathing even after death and these people are not considered alive. If it is not clear that he is alive from other indicators e.,g. he doesn’t respond even if stabbed with a needle such as being in a state known as a coma. Then as long as the respirator is working it is prohibited to remove it from his mouth because he might be alive and by the removal he is being killed. However when the respirator stops working for example when the oxygen tanks are depleted, it is not required to put him back on the respirator when it starts working for a period of 15 minutes. If he is no longer alive as seen by the absence of breathing then it means he has died. IKn contrast if he is living as can be seen from the fact that he is breathing even without the respirator even if it is with difficulty and interruptions then he should be returned to the respirator immediately. This should be done a number of times until his condition improves or it is apparent that he can’t breathe on his own and is dead.
You say that now there is a test that allows the great doctors to determine by the injection of a special fluid into the veins that can show whether the connection of the body to the brain has been stopped If this fluid does not go to the brain it is clear that the brain is no longer attached to the body and it also indicates the brain is already completely rotted and the patient is considered functionally decapitated. If this is true then we should be strict with those, especially if they don’t feel anything anymore and don’t respond if stuck with a needle and they no longer can breathe independently .to not declare them dead without doing this test. . That means if we see that the brain is still connected to the body even though they can’t breathe without a respirator to keep them on the respirator even for a long time. Thus we should say that the test of independent breathing should be done in conjunction with this test to determine death. This might be relevant also for those who have taken an overdose of sleeping pills or other medication. Until all the medication gets out of the body they can not breathe. In such cases the respirator needs to be connected for longer periods in order to clarify if they are dead since death can not be determined readily as long as the drugs remain in the body.
https://www.newsweek.com/jd-vance-wife-attacks-maga-trump-running-mate-1926194
In the wake of Trump's vice presidential announcement on Monday, numerous conservative and far-right figures have taken to social media to launch racist attacks against Usha Vance because of her Indian heritage and the assumption that her influence on her husband's political career means the Republican Party will be softer on immigration.
Nick Fuentes, a white supremacist who visited Trump at his Mar-a-Lago home along with rapper Kanye West in November 2022, suggested that Vance would not be a "defender of white identity" because of his wife's Indian heritage.
"Who is this guy, really?" Fuentes said on his podcast. "Do we really expect that the guy who has an Indian wife and named their kid Vivek is going to support white identity?"
Igros Moshe (YD IV #54.2) Question If hospital or government declare a patient dead though according to halacha he is still living and demands that the doctors stop treatment and take him off the respirator, should the doctor refuse to comply and not tell the nurses? Answer In reality telling the nurses to disconnect the respirator which involves them sinning, is not prohibited because of lifnei Iveir since there are other doctors (non Jews and irreligious Jews) who will tell them to disconnect the respirator. Nevertheless it is best if the religious doctors should no longer be involved in this patients treatment. .However if it is a case that it is a Jewish patient then he has an obligation to do everything in his power to save the patient even if it is only for a few days as the patient is now considered a gosais even though he is not actually dead. This means even if it costs the religious doctor a lot of money to pay to have the treatment continued according to what I wrote (YD I #223; YD II #174.4) If following this causes aivah (hatred) because he only seems concerned with Jew, then he is obligated to try and save non Jews also.
