Egyptian security source - whose country has been mediating between the sides - said they had agreed in principle to a mutual halt in hostilities.
Friday, May 21, 2021
Biden promises to replenish Iron Dome, help rebuild Gaza
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/biden-us-will-replenish-iron-dome-amid-ceasefire-668721
US President Joe Biden promised to replenish Israel's Iron Dome
system and to help rebuild Gaza in a brief address he delivered at the
White House shortly after the announcement that a truce had been reached to end 11 days of IDF-Hamas conflict on Thursday evening.
"The
US is committed to working with the UN... and other international
stakeholders to provide rapid humanitarian assistance and to marshal
international support for the people of Gaza and the Gaza reconstruction efforts," he said.
"We
will do this in full partnership with the Palestinian Authority, not
Hamas, the PA, in a manner that does not permit Hamas to restock its
military arsenal," Biden said.
"Palestinians
and Israelis equally deserve to live safely and securely. My
administration will continue our quiet relentless diplomacy toward that
end. We have a genuine opportunity to make progress," Biden said.
Thursday, May 20, 2021
Get on Demand זיוף התורה : Psak from R Hershel Schacter
זיןף התורה
The words highlighted above in yellow do
not appear in the רעק''א
or in the שבות יעקב חלק א' סימן י''ד which the רעק''א is referencing. The reason these words were inserted was that
the author was trying to promote his agenda and give credence to a concept
which he has fantasized. In order to explain why this forgery was perpetrated It
is important to explain the agenda and why it is wrong.
A husband has the
obligation of שאר כסות ועונה (שכו''ע) if the husband refuses to meet the obligation
of עונה we
say he is being מעגן his
wife. We are also allowed to force him to give a get since he is violating the
obligations of שכו''ע. In Siman 77 he is classified as a מורד. Until modern times a
husband who did not want to go thru the GET process would just leave town and
never be heard from again. This is what the שבות יעקב is addressing, the instance of a מורד. In the scenario of a GET ON DEMAND the husband is prepared to
meet his obligations but the wife still wants to leave the marriage, there is
absolutely no requirement for the husband to give a get, since he is not a מורד. Therefore it is 100% prohibited from
applying pressure on the husband to facilitate the GET. This is a complete
contradiction to the feminist philosophy of GET ON DEMAND
In order to pander
to the feminist movement and not be considered old fashioned the author has
created a pseudo concept which has no basis in HALACHAH. He has claimed that
once a woman leaves a marriage and will not go back the marriage is broken.
Since the marriage is now broken the woman is anעגונה and now there is a Mitzvah for the husband to
give a GET. They are using the שבות יעקב as the source for this.
As explained in the previous paragraph this is a major mistake. They are also
misclassifying the woman by calling her an עגונה In the vast majority of cases she is not an עגונה but a מורדת. The HALACHA in these instances is that she has to be told to
return to her husband. The reason we do not hear of this happening is because
any Bais Din who told a woman that she must return to her husband would cause
the stream of dollars from women seeking the Bais Din to assist them in leaving
a marriage to cease. Since no one is willing to stand up to this crowd their
fraudulent Halachas have propagated and are now affecting the Yichus of Bnei
Torah.
In the instance of
the woman claiming מאוס עלי and having presented it in a manner which is
an אמתלא מבוררת ונכרת to a Bais Din she does not have to return to
the husband. This is extremely rare and the reasons for the rarity are out of
scope for this article. The Ramoh quotes the Tur on this scenario. I will quote
the statement of the Tur on this to make it clearer. In Siman 77 it says as follows ובאר
עוד בתשובה וכתב והסכימו חכמי אשכנז וצרפת שבטענת מאיס עלי אין לכוף לבעל לגרש לכן
יזהר כל דיין שלא לכוף לגרש בטענת מאיס עלי וכן אין כופין אותה להיות אצלו There is no greater
scenario of a broken marriage then one where the woman does not have to return
to live with the husband. We still say that even in this scenario it is
prohibited from forcing the husband to give a GET. This is a complete
contradiction to what the GET ON DEMAND people are promoting.
RAMIFICATIONS
1> No external pressure is applied. The Bais Din
tells the husband that he is obligated according to the Torah to give a get. He
obeys the Bais Din and gives a GET. This is a classic case of a גט בטעות . If
the husband would know that there is absolutely no obligation to give a GET he
would never have given a GET. This is a statement from the חזון איש in EVEN HOEZER Siman 99 paragraph 2 on a similar scenario ועוד דחשיב גט בטעות
דאילו הוי ידע שאינו חייב לא היה מגרש
2> Indirect pressure
applied. There are too many variables involved so this is not in scope.
3> Direct pressure applied. This would also invalidate the GET
because it is מעושה
שלא כדין
TOSHAV MONSEY
‘In world’s view, Palestinians are the weaker side’: Inside Israel’s PR war
https://www.timesofisrael.com/in-worlds-view-palestinians-are-the-weaker-side-inside-israels-pr-war/
“But self-damaging Israeli hasbara makes it so easy for him, for example with the ‘before and after’ IDF Instagram post he cited celebrating the demolition of the Gaza media tower — what he called the ‘triumphant meme.’ And most substantively, Israel leaves the door wide open to its critics, and dismays its supporters, by failing to effectively explain, in real time, when things go wrong.”
The one question Tucker Carlson won't answer
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/05/19/opinions/tucker-carlson-vaccine-opinion-reiner/index.html
But while Carlson has posed countless uninformed and misleading questions to cast doubt on the safety and efficacy of Covid-19 vaccines, there is one question that he has not answered: Has he been vaccinated against Covid? (Fox News did not immediately respond to my request for comment.)
House approves commission to probe Capitol riot
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/306491
The US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a bill to establish a commission to investigate the January 6 attack on the Capitol.
Lawmakers passed the bill in a 252-175 vote, with 35 Republicans joining all Democrats in support, according to The Hill.
However, the legislation’s chances appear increasingly slim in the Senate after both Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) came out in opposition to the bill.
Trump issued a statement on Tuesday night opposing the commission and calling out the top two GOP leaders.
"Republicans in the House and Senate should not approve the Democrat trap of the January 6 Commission. ... Republicans must get much tougher and much smarter, and stop being used by the Radical Left. Hopefully, Mitch McConnell and Kevin McCarthy are listening!" Trump said in the statement.
Wednesday, May 19, 2021
Fact check: Trump lies that he was being 'sarcastic' when he talked about injecting disinfectant
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/04/24/politics/fact-check-trump-disinfectant-sarcastic/index.html
President Donald Trump lied Friday when he said he was being "sarcastic" when he asked medical experts on Thursday to look into the possibility of injecting disinfectant as a treatment for the coronavirus.
Doctors and the company that makes Lysol and Dettol warned
that injecting or ingesting disinfectants is dangerous. But when Trump
was asked about the comments during a bill signing on Friday, he said,
"I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you just to see
what would happen."
He
then suggested he was talking about disinfectants that can safely be
rubbed on people's hands. And then he returned to the sarcasm
explanation, saying it was "a very sarcastic question to the reporters
in the room about disinfectant on the inside."
A
reporter noted that he had asked his medical experts to look into it.
Trump responded: "No, no, no, no -- to look into whether or not sun and
disinfectant on the hands, but whether or not sun can help us."
Facts First: Trump
was not being "sarcastic" on Thursday when he raised the possibility of
injecting disinfectant. There was simply no indication that he was
being anything less than serious. He was also wrong Friday when he
denied he had asked the medical experts to "check" the idea of
disinfectant injections; he was looking at them at the time. And he did
not mention hands during his Thursday remarks.
White House claims Trump just joking when he said he ordered COVID testing slowdown
The White House said Monday that President Donald Trump was speaking only in “jest” when he said at Saturday night’s rally that he told officials to slow down testing for the coronavirus and that he had not actually ordered anyone to do so.
"No, he has not directed that," White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany said in an exchange with ABC News’ Ben Gittleson in Monday’s press briefing and added that "any suggestion that testing has been curtailed is not rooted in fact."
"It was a comment that he made in jest," she also said.
Biden ripped for joking about running over reporter who asked about Israel
https://nypost.com/2021/05/19/joe-biden-ripped-for-joking-about-running-over-reporter/
Biden made the questionable quip Tuesday from behind the wheel of the new F-150 Lightning electric pickup truck when a reporter asked if she could ask “a quick question on Israel … since it’s so important?”
“No, you can’t,” Biden replied bluntly. “Not unless you get in front of the car as I step on it.”
החסיד שחיבר את 'ישראל והזמנים' נפטר בחג השבועות
https://www.bhol.co.il/news/1223043
במוצאי חג השבועות ליוו בירושלים למנוחות את הסופר הרה"ח ר' דוד רוסוף זצ"ל
מחבר ספרים רבים שעסק בתורת הקבלה בישיבת 'שער השמים' ונפטר לבית עולמו
לפני צאת חג השבועות
The War On Critical Race Theory Continues As Some Call It Anti-White
What’s interesting to note is that the CRT backlash is not just coming from white conservatives in southern and rural parts of the U.S. Some of the CRT pushback stems from those who are most impacted by racialized systems. Recently, South Carolina Senator Tim Scott, who also happens to be the only Black Republican in the Senate, remarked that “America is not a racist country.” And just days ago, Vernon Jones, a Republican gubernatorial candidate in the state of Georgia, debated academic and political commentator Dr. Marc Lamont Hill on whether CRT should be taught in schools. Jones tweeted “it’s time for our schools to stop teaching our kids to hate America.” CRT criticism is not just in the U.S. Activist and educator Constanza Eliana Chinea discussed the global CRT backlash in a recent Instagram live conversation. Chinea mentioned British politician Kemi Badenoch, who has been an outspoken opponent of CRT. Badenoch stated that she felt that CRT authors actually want a “segregated society.” She also shared that adopting a mindset that Black people are victims simply because of their skin color is “poisonous for young people.” There has been similar pushback in France, where anti-racism educators and activists are being accused of “threatening the values of the republic.” In Australia there have also been attacks on CRT, with many touting CRT as being “anti-white.” The increased wave of backlash against CRT is a direct result of the heightened support for Black Lives Matter following the murder of George Floyd, explained Chinea in her Instagram live video.
Biblical slavery and Morality
Excerpts from "Orthodox Approaches to Biblical Slavery" by Gamliel Shmalo - which appeared in The Torah u-Maddah Journal Volume 16 2012-2013
Recent popular and aggressively anti-religious books have highlighted the Bible's sanctioning of slavery as evidence of the Bible’s immorality.' One striking example can be found in a bestselling and deliberately provocative book by journalist, author, and political commentator Christopher Hitchens, who argues that the ethics of the Bible lead the sensitive modern thinker not so much to atheism as to "anti-theism:"
By this I mean the view that we ought to be glad that none of the religious myths has any truth to it, or in it. The Bible may, indeed does, contain a warrant for trafficking in humans, for ethnic cleansing, for slavery, for bride-price, and for indiscriminate massacre, but we are not bound by any of it because it was put together by crude, uncultured human mammals.'Given the enormous outrage and repulsion that the modern Western world feels toward slavery, arguments like Hitchens' find fertile ground.
Not all readers of the Bible have been moved to throw down an atheist gauntlet in the manner of Hitchens. Recent progressive theologians point to biblical slavery, along with animal sacrifice and the prohibition against homosexuality, as a moral anachronism that the Western world has out grown. Unlike atheist critics, these progressive theologians are unwilling to reject their biblical traditions outright; in fact, they claim to take much inspiration and guidance from these traditions.
Nevertheless, they find so many gaps between their modern moral sensitivities and the particular commandments and institutions of the Bible that their divergence from those institutions appears systemic. For example, in an article supporting the concept of single-sex marriage, Reform rabbi Devon Lerner points to biblical slavery as a basis for concluding that "Our world is very different from the world of the biblical times, and so all of our religious practices and interpretations of the Bible have necessarily changed and evolved through the centuries."
Orthodox Judaism has its share of morally sensitive thinkers, and they also have had to deal with the Western outrage over biblical slavery; naturally, in order to remain Orthodox, they have not been moved, as Hitchens was, to reject the Bible as primitively mammalian. They are therefore left with the task of resolving the conflict between the modern moral outcry against slavery and the Bible's obvious sanction of the institution. Among Orthodox Jewish thinkers of the modern period, several creative-and sometimes mutually exclusive-approaches to this contradiction have emerged. Some have reinterpreted the biblical system in order to render it less offensive; others have questioned the moral superiority of the anti-slavery position; still others see biblical slavery as one of a few ephemeral accommodations to particular historical circumstances that the Western world has thankfully outgrown. This paper will examine these Orthodox approaches. […]
Rav S. R. Hirsch (Shemos 12:44): The consideration of certain circumstances is necessary, correctly to understand the fact that the Torah presupposes and allows the possession and purchase of slaves from abroad to a nation itself just released from slavery. No Jew could make any other human being into a slave. He could only acquire by purchase people who, by then universally accepted international law, were already slaves. But this transference into the property of a Jew was the one and only salvation for anybody who, according to the prevailing laws of the nations, was stamped as a slave. The terribly sad experiences of even the last century (Union, Jamaica 1865) teach us how completely unprotected and liable to the most inhuman treatment was the slave who in accordance with the national law was not emancipated, and even when emancipated, wherever he was, looked upon as still belonging to the slave class, or as a freed slave."
============================
Netziv accepts slavery as being in the moral and religious interest of the pagan. While R. Hirsch and R. Uziel reinterpret the laws of slavery and then show how purchase by a Jew is to the existing slave's benefit, Netziv justifies the entire institution of slavery by appealing to the religious benefit any gentile would derive from joining the nation of Israel, even in the limited and restrictive role as a slave. [….]
Sometimes, Netziv claims, slavery is the only way to help a vulgar person find positive religious expression in his life. For example, when discussing the curse of Ham, the son of Noah, Netziv writes that slavery fits the nature of Ham and his descendants. His comments are a response to the fact that although Noah cursed only Ham with slavery, many descendants of Shem and Japheth have also been enslaved, while at the same time many of descendants of Ham remain free. […]
The modern moralist accepts personal autonomy and liberty as sacrosanct. In the conception of Netziv, however, the imposition of moral standards and monotheism is far more important, since only through moral practice and monotheist belief can any person fulfill his purpose on earth and return his soul to its divine source. Morality and monotheism accepted autonomously may be the ideal, but for a corrupt Ham and his descendants-both figurative and literal-a regulated and merciful system of slavery is a clear second best. One who views slavery only as a social institution may certainly find it terrible, and a Bible that supports it immoral; but Netziv, who sees slavery as a vehicle through which the pagan may participate to some degree in the covenant and commandments of Israel, justifies the sacrifice of personal liberty as worthwhile." […]
R. Abraham Yizhak Ha-Kohen Kook (1865-1935) was a close student of Netziv, and like his teacher, he unapologetically accepts slavery as just when controlled by the divine laws of the Bible and when practiced within the context of a merciful and moral society." R. Kook's acceptance of slavery is based on the premise that human beings are naturally and inevitably unequal-not in moral terms, as in the conception of Netziv, but rather in physical and economic terms. R. Kook argues that in order to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak, employers should be given an economic interest in the welfare of their workers, and this is best achieved when the latter are treated as property. R. Kook cites the contemporary predicament of coal miners who, as free laborers, worked (and often still work) under horrible and sometimes tragic conditions. Were the mine owners to have an economic property interest in each individual worker, R. Kook argues, the owners would surely care for them better. When slavery is regulated by the laws of the Torah (which R. Kook understands to include not just the Bible but the oral tradition as well), the institution of slavery may, in fact, be the most merciful mode of life for such workers. Only when slave owners are cruel does the institution become monstrous; under such circumstances, it is better that there should be no slaves at all.
R. Kook is of the opinion that the laws of slavery are a noble, if not ideal, solution to a less than perfect economy. The ideal solution presumably would be merciful labor laws fulfilled by merciful people. Jewish law, however, recognizes that in reality, people will act in a way that is exploitative, and the Bible deals with this sad reality by prescribing slavery as one solution. As previously noted, however, in a world where people take cruel advantage, it is better to do away with that institution entirely. R. Kook's approach to slavery echoes his approach towards other Jewish laws-they are directed at people who are basically righteous, but who still have the human failings of a pre-messianic age. […] ==============================
R. Abraham Yizhak Ha-Kohen Kook (1865-1935) was a close student of Netziv, and like his teacher, he unapologetically accepts slavery as just when controlled by the divine laws of the Bible and when practiced within the context of a merciful and moral society." R. Kook's acceptance of slavery is based on the premise that human beings are naturally and inevitably unequal-not in moral terms, as in the conception of Netziv, but rather in physical and economic terms. R. Kook argues that in order to prevent the strong from exploiting the weak, employers should be given an economic interest in the welfare of their workers, and this is best achieved when the latter are treated as property. R. Kook cites the contemporary predicament of coal miners who, as free laborers, worked (and often still work) under horrible and sometimes tragic conditions. Were the mine owners to have an economic property interest in each individual worker, R. Kook argues, the owners would surely care for them better. When slavery is regulated by the laws of the Torah (which R. Kook understands to include not just the Bible but the oral tradition as well), the institution of slavery may, in fact, be the most merciful mode of life for such workers. Only when slave owners are cruel does the institution become monstrous; under such circumstances, it is better that there should be no slaves at all.
R. Kook is of the opinion that the laws of slavery are a noble, if not ideal, solution to a less than perfect economy. The ideal solution presumably would be merciful labor laws fulfilled by merciful people. Jewish law, however, recognizes that in reality, people will act in a way that is exploitative, and the Bible deals with this sad reality by prescribing slavery as one solution. As previously noted, however, in a world where people take cruel advantage, it is better to do away with that institution entirely. R. Kook's approach to slavery echoes his approach towards other Jewish laws-they are directed at people who are basically righteous, but who still have the human failings of a pre-messianic age. […] ==============================
Like Netziv, R. Dessler [4:247] notes that the source of slavery is rooted in the biblical Ham's moral corruption. Noah's reaction to Ham's act of violence, according to R. Dessler, indicates that the institution of slavery was in tended to enable a "small" person to perfect himself by becoming a "vessel for a great" person." Nevertheless, like R. Kook, R. Dessler disavows the practical utility of slavery in his contemporary world. He explains that over the course of history, the originally constructive relationship between slave and master changed for the worse, so that the relationship became defined less by moral superiority and more by inequalities of power in which the weak became the slaves of the strong. The powerful tried to justify their exploitation by taking on the external trappings of moral superiority-gentility and superficial manners-but these gestures were empty and often hypocritical. Ultimately, the slaves threw off their yokes to become the dominant cultural force themselves, sadly lacking not only moral excellence but even shallow manners.
R. Dessler's explanation traces a history of ethical degeneration, from true moral leadership to exploitation supported by superficial and hypocritical moralizing and from empty exploitation to bald immorality. Without question, the world should be freed from the grip of hypocritical masters, moralizers, and imperialists, but in practice, we have found ourselves in an even worse state. While R. Hirsch views emancipation as a step along the road of social progress, R. Dessler sees it as just the opposite. This description of slavery parallels his general perspective on historical degeneration, yeridat ha-dorot;" a perspective grounded in classical rabbinic literature39 which defines, to some degree, more right-wing Orthodoxy." Modern man rages against slavery because he knows it only in its corrupted and cruel form. Were we to witness this institution as the Bible intended for it to be practiced, for the physical (R. Kook) or moral/spiritual (R. Dessler or Netziv) benefit of the slave, even modern man would agree that this is a useful institution.
The moral outrage that modern thinkers share against slavery has elicited widely different responses to the moral status of biblical slavery. Not only are there differences between the religious and the anti-religious, but there are differences even within the ranks of Orthodox Jewry. This subject highlights various Orthodox perspectives on history: some Orthodox thinkers lament the loss of a potentially valuable social instrument due to the moral decline of society throughout history, while others point to emancipation as a sign of moral progress. Even more centrally, our examination of the topic shows the varying degrees to which Orthodox thinkers acknowledge the moral values of their contemporary society and the different models with which they confront those values. Some are more apologetic, limiting biblical slavery so that it conforms to modern conceptions. Others assert that the Bible contains moral accommodations that society has transcended. Interestingly, even conservative thinkers-who justify slavery by pointing to the social, economic, moral, and spiritual benefits it gives to the weak and the vulgar-may have been moved by modern conceptions to justify slavery in accordance with those conceptions.
Accepting that only a direct benefit to the slave himself could be an acceptable justification for enslavement, almost all would agree that the practical application of this once normative institution would be unthinkable today. Of course, the most conservative rabbis might argue that their approaches are informed only by unchanging biblical values, that their views have always been the Jewish view [55. Indeed, among the great medieval Jewish thinkers, slavery for life was justified based on the religious needs of the Jewish master, a position that I have not found among the modern commentators. See, for example, Sefer ha-Hinnukh, commandment 347, "To work a Canaanite slave forever."] , and that they have not been influenced by modern notions of egalitarianism. These claims would have to be tested by a comparative study of the talmudic and medieval rabbinic literature on this subject - a study that would beyond the scope of this paper.
R. Dessler's explanation traces a history of ethical degeneration, from true moral leadership to exploitation supported by superficial and hypocritical moralizing and from empty exploitation to bald immorality. Without question, the world should be freed from the grip of hypocritical masters, moralizers, and imperialists, but in practice, we have found ourselves in an even worse state. While R. Hirsch views emancipation as a step along the road of social progress, R. Dessler sees it as just the opposite. This description of slavery parallels his general perspective on historical degeneration, yeridat ha-dorot;" a perspective grounded in classical rabbinic literature39 which defines, to some degree, more right-wing Orthodoxy." Modern man rages against slavery because he knows it only in its corrupted and cruel form. Were we to witness this institution as the Bible intended for it to be practiced, for the physical (R. Kook) or moral/spiritual (R. Dessler or Netziv) benefit of the slave, even modern man would agree that this is a useful institution.
The moral outrage that modern thinkers share against slavery has elicited widely different responses to the moral status of biblical slavery. Not only are there differences between the religious and the anti-religious, but there are differences even within the ranks of Orthodox Jewry. This subject highlights various Orthodox perspectives on history: some Orthodox thinkers lament the loss of a potentially valuable social instrument due to the moral decline of society throughout history, while others point to emancipation as a sign of moral progress. Even more centrally, our examination of the topic shows the varying degrees to which Orthodox thinkers acknowledge the moral values of their contemporary society and the different models with which they confront those values. Some are more apologetic, limiting biblical slavery so that it conforms to modern conceptions. Others assert that the Bible contains moral accommodations that society has transcended. Interestingly, even conservative thinkers-who justify slavery by pointing to the social, economic, moral, and spiritual benefits it gives to the weak and the vulgar-may have been moved by modern conceptions to justify slavery in accordance with those conceptions.
Accepting that only a direct benefit to the slave himself could be an acceptable justification for enslavement, almost all would agree that the practical application of this once normative institution would be unthinkable today. Of course, the most conservative rabbis might argue that their approaches are informed only by unchanging biblical values, that their views have always been the Jewish view [55. Indeed, among the great medieval Jewish thinkers, slavery for life was justified based on the religious needs of the Jewish master, a position that I have not found among the modern commentators. See, for example, Sefer ha-Hinnukh, commandment 347, "To work a Canaanite slave forever."] , and that they have not been influenced by modern notions of egalitarianism. These claims would have to be tested by a comparative study of the talmudic and medieval rabbinic literature on this subject - a study that would beyond the scope of this paper.
The War on Critical Race Theory
http://bostonreview.net/race-politics/david-theo-goldberg-war-critical-race-theory
What do all these attacks add up to? The exact targets of CRT’s critics vary wildly, but it is obvious that most critics simply do not know what they are talking about. Instead, CRT functions for the right today primarily as an empty signifier for any talk of race and racism at all, a catch-all specter lumping together “multiculturalism,” “wokeism,” “anti-racism,” and “identity politics”—or indeed any suggestion that racial inequities in the United States are anything but fair outcomes, the result of choices made by equally positioned individuals in a free society. They are simply against any talk, discussion, mention, analysis, or intimation of race—except to say we shouldn’t talk about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)