Arizona judge rules two of Kari Lake's election challenge claims can go to trial

 https://www.foxnews.com/politics/arizona-judge-rules-two-kari-lakes-election-challenge-claims-can-trial

An Arizona judge ruled that two out of 10 claims, brought by former Republican gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake, challenging Democrat Governor-elect Katie Hobbs' election victory can go to trial.  

Maricopa County Superior Judge Peter Thompson dismissed eight out of 10 counts in Lake's election lawsuit - ruling they did not fall under the proper criteria to bring election challenges under Arizona law.

The two counts that Judge Thompson ruled can go to trial involve printers malfunctioning on Election Day and ballot chain of custody. Lake claimed printers that malfunctioned were not certified and had "vulnerabilities" that made them "susceptible to hacking." She also claimed the printers malfunctioned because of "intentional action." 

Marjorie Taylor Greene Turns on Lauren Boebert After 'Space Lasers' Taunt

 https://www.newsweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene-turns-lauren-boebert-after-space-lasers-taunt-1768285

"I've aligned with Marjorie and been accused of believing a lot of the things that she believes in," the GOP's Boebert told Kirk while standing next to Republican Representative Matt Gaetz. "I don't believe in [McCarthy as speaker], just as I don't believe in Russian space lasers, Jewish space lasers and all of this. No."

The Legacy of Rabbi Feivel Cohen vis-à-vis the Agunah Problem by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira

 Last month, on 26 Marcheshvan, 5783, Rabbi Feivel Cohen – author of Badei ha-Shulchan and other works – ascended to the Heavenly Academy. Ten days later, Rabbi Mordechai Willig – chief justice of the Beth Din of America – delivered an eloquent appreciation for Rabbi Cohen [available at <https://www.yutorah.org/sidebar/lecture.cfm/1051145/rabbi-mordechai-i-willig/eruv-in-brooklyn-some-words-on-rav-feivel-cohen/>] , in which he mentioned Rabbi Cohen’s legacy vis-à-vis the agunah problem. I wish to respectfully yet carefully review Rabbi Willig’s remarks in the present essay, ke-darkah shel Torah. 

            The bulk of Rabbi Willig’s lecture explores Hilkhot Eruvin. Seeking to solve a particular difficulty in the field that is raised by Sfat Emet, Rabbi Willig [commencing 53:50 into the recording] cites a brilliant insight of Rabbi Cohen’s book Da‘at Kohen which clinches the discussion. It is at this point that Rabbi Willig turns to eulogizing Rabbi Cohen by describing the latter [not only as a proficient scholar in Eruvin but also] as a closet supporter of his prenup [viz. the 1993 Beth Din of America prenup] designed to rescue agunot. 

            Specifically, Rabbi Willig reports that – years ago, when Rabbi Willig was first contemplating his proposed prenup [before its ultimate release in 1993] – he studied Rabbi Cohen’s book Mi-Dor le-Dor, where the author elucidates how to execute an estate-inheritance-will via a shtar chatzi zakhar without running afoul of the rules of asmakhta (a contingency agreement wherein the person accepting liability never seriously anticipates that his obligation to pay will materialize and hence is halakhically invalid). After digesting the book’s contents, Rabbi Willig arrived at the conclusion that the same mechanism which Rabbi Cohen employs to bypass the asmakhta problem for a shtar chatzi zakhar can likewise bypass the asmakhta problem for committing a husband to pay his wife money as soon as she moves out of the house until such time as the husband will grant a get [=the essence of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, and a putative formula to rescue agunot].  

Seeking confirmation, Rabbi Willig approached Rabbi Cohen with the prenup idea. In Rabbi Willig’s words: “He was very nice to me. He said: ‘You know, it’s very good, the sevara is right, but we’re not doing it over here in Brooklyn.’” The implication of Rabbi Willig’s testimony is that Rabbi Cohen agreed to his prenup in principle, but simply as a matter of voluntary policy [so as not to rustle the feathers of fellow Brooklynites] preferred not to implement the concept in his community. 

            Alas, Rabbi Willig’s extrapolation from shtar chatzi zakhar to the laws of gittin [and likewise Rabbi Cohen’s reported closet support thereof] is (be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) tenuous. In the case of a shtar chatzi zakhar, the sober-minded individual signing the document knows in advance that there is a reasonable probability he will die (until we are privileged to experience the messianic era when the mal'akh ha-mavet will disappear, as per the Gemara, Sukkah 52a) and so he sincerely wishes to bequeath property to others a moment before death occurs [as the shtar chatzi zakhar declares]. By contradistinction, in the case of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, the groom who signs the document does not seriously entertain the probability that his wife will ever demand divorce in the future. [If he realized that this was such a demanding wife, he wouldn’t have signed the document in the first place.] Hence, the quotidian money transfer specified in the prenup indeed represents an asmakhta which the husband is not obligated to pay, and if a secular court nevertheless threatens the husband that he will lose the specified money until he grants a get, then the get is invalid as per the Mishnah, Gittin 88b [that a get coerced by a secular court contrary to Halakhah is invalid].   

            Admittedly, it is true that the Mishnah, Makkot 3a compares the actuarial probability of future death to the actuarial probability of future divorce in calculating how much money to fine edim zomemin (witnesses who claimed that a husband divorced his wife without granting a ketubah, and were then discovered to be false by virtue of their not being in the location of the alleged divorce at the time of the alleged divorce). Perhaps it is this Mishnah that caused Rabbi Willig and Rabbi Cohen to believe that we can extrapolate from the shtar chatzi zakhar (i.e. anticipation of death) to the prenup (i.e. anticipation of divorce). Even so, however, a careful examination of Makkot 3a reveals that [regarding divorce] the Mishnah is discussing the actuarial probability that the husband will offer a get to his wife of his own free will in the future, not the actuarial probability that the wife will demand a get from her husband in the future [the latter representing the basis of Rabbi Willig’s prenup]. Thus, it remains the case that Rabbi Willig’s prenup is subject to the asmakhta objection. Ergo, it is precisely because of our sympathy for agunot that we should encourage any married couple which has signed Rabbi Willig’s prenup to sign the release form [revoking the secular court’s ability to enforce Rabbi Willig’s prenup] in Section A of my relevant essay at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>. Otherwise, the wife may be stuck with an invalid get and hence remain an agunah. The same message [albeit without a sample release form] is offered by Rabbi Pinchas Spira [no immediate relation to this student] in his treatise Kedushat ha-Nissu’in, available at <https://hebrewbooks.org/60970>.  

            Me-inyan le-inyan be-oto inyan (to borrow the expression from Kiddushin 6a), Rabbi Willig’s prenup plays an illuminating role in the specific agunah case of Epstein vs. Friedman. Namely, as reported at <https://yucommentator.org/2012/04/panel-featuring-current-agunah-confronts-crisis/>, on March 29, 2012, Rabbi Hershel Schachter claimed that [notwithstanding Exodus 20:14, which prohibits arbitrarily telling a husband to divorce his wife, nevertheless] Mr. Aharon Friedman is obligated to grant Ms. Tamar Epstein a get because nobody told her about Rabbi Willig’s prenup before her marriage to Mr. Friedman. Had she known about Rabbi Willig’s prenup, she would have executed it prior to her chuppah and thereby enjoyed an automatic “get out of jail free” card.  

Alas, this approach (while well-meaning) represents a compounded error by Rabbi Schachter (be-mechilat Kevod Torato). Firstly, Rabbi Willig’s prenup would not have rescued Ms. Epstein from her agunah predicament since the prenup does not work altogether [as argued in the present article]. Secondly, even if there would be an [alternate] prenup that does work to rescue agunot [which indeed there fortuitously is, as explained in Section Q of my aforementioned essay at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/176990434/Prenuptial-Agreements>], failure to apprise the bride of the existence of the prenup [while perhaps unprofessional/unethical on the part of the mesader kiddushin who should have informed the bride in advance] most certainly does not constitute grounds for a Beth Din to subsequently obligate the husband to grant a get. See Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer nos. 77 and 154.

            And this brings us to my final point. Notwithstanding his reported closet support of Rabbi Willig’s prenup, Rabbi Feivel Cohen has clearly announced [in a public manner, and not merely in a private conversation] that Ms. Epstein remains the wife of Mr. Aharon Friedman according to Torah law. [See <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2016/01/rav-feivel-cohen-rules-heter-is.html>, and my elaboration at <http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2022/07/response-to-eulogy-for-rabbi-nota-zvi.html>.] Ergo, if we genuinely wish to honour the legacy of Rabbi Cohen vis-à-vis the agunah problem, we should all politely pray that Ms. Epstein soon return to Beth Din with her true husband Mr. Friedman. And this is an especially appropriate aspiration for Chanukah, since the final paragraph of Rambam, Hilkhot Chanukah points out that the Holy One, Blessed Be He, will even allow His Name to be placed in water in order to bring peace between husband and wife. 

  

Rabbi Spira works as Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute of Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada. 

Police to close case against Rabbi Zvi Thau

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/364652

The police are expected to announce in the coming days that the case against Rabbi Zvi Thau will be closed due to lack of evidence that he committed a criminal act, Kan News reported.

According to the report, the police were unable to formulate a basis for criminal charges after examining the complaints against the rabbi and no evidence was found which reached the required threshold for criminal charges.

Jan. 6 committee unveils criminal referrals against Trump

 https://thehill.com/homenews/house/3780865-jan-6-committee-unveils-criminal-referrals-against-trump/

The House select committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol unveiled criminal referrals on Monday targeting former President Trump, recommending that the Department of Justice investigate the ex-president for inciting an insurrection, conspiracy to defraud the United States, conspiracy to make a false statement and obstruction of an official proceeding.

The referrals mark the culmination of the committee’s 18-month probe of the Jan. 6 attack and the role Trump played before, during and after the riot. They are a crescendo in the panel’s central case that Trump was at the center of a conspiracy to keep himself in power.

Jan. 6 Hearing : Committee Refers Donald Trump to Justice Department for Criminal Charges

 https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/jan-6-committee-hearing-trump-updates?mod=hp_lead_pos1

The House committee investigating the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol voted to make a raft of criminal referrals to the Justice Department for former President Donald Trump related to his attempt to overturn the presidential election.

The committee took the action in the panel’s 10th and final meeting this year as it concludes its 18-month probe.

Jan. 6 committee formally accuses Donald Trump of four crimes

 https://www.politico.com/news/2022/12/18/jan6-committee-deliver-judgment-trump-00074365

The Jan. 6 select committee on Monday voted to formally accuse Donald Trump of four crimes, including assisting an insurrection, in his bid to subvert the transfer of presidential power to Joe Biden.

The panel contended that its evidence proved Trump provided “aid and comfort” to a mob that was ransacking the Capitol in service of his attempts to reverse his loss in 2020. It also said Trump could be charged with obstructing Congress’ Jan. 6 joint session, conspiracy to make false statements to the National Archives and conspiracy to defraud the United States.

US House panel recommends criminal charges against Trump for Jan. 6 Capitol attack

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog-december-19-2022/

The committee ‘has developed significant evidence that president Trump intended to disrupt peaceful transition of power under our Constitution,’ committee says

US backs probe into accident after Palestinian brothers killed by Israeli driver

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-backs-call-to-probe-accident-after-israeli-driver-kills-palestinian-brothers/

The United States on Sunday joined a call for an investigation into a deadly traffic incident over the weekend, in which an Israeli driver struck and killed two Palestinian brothers working on a disabled vehicle on the shoulder of a West Bank road.

The Palestinian Authority has called the Saturday collision, which took the lives of Mohammad and Muhannad Muteir from the Jerusalem-area Qalandiya refugee camp, an intentional ramming attack, while Israel Police says that it was an accident.

Anarchy rules in ultra-Orthodox enclaves of Jerusalem

 https://www.ynetnews.com/magazine/article/sj5j696uj#autoplay

Residents of the capital's Haredi enclaves, claim that the police is afraid to enter, leaving the lawless extremists to riot at will, whether protesting immodesty, military service or infrastructure projects

Religion - Jewish versus non Jewish

 Meshech Chochma (Shemos 12:21): It is said about the Jews that they are believers the descendants of believers However non Jews have stronger religious beliefs than Jews - even when their religion is utter nonsense To explain the distinction between Jewish and non Jewish faith, one must note that the appreciation of things such as love, beauty and power are all inherent in a person. The ancient peoples sanctified all these natural powers and placed high value on them and described them as resulting from specific G-ds. Thus they had a G-d of beauty, a G-d of power and a G-d of love as is well known. Even today, the peoples of the world make images and sanctify these tangible - directly experienced characteristics. Thus, non Jewish religious faith is essentially just an extension of natural emotion. That is not how G d conceives religious faith…. In fact, all tangible existence is totally separate from the one Creator. All this is such pure abstract intellectual awareness that Chovas HaLevavos asserts that true service of G d is for either the philosopher or prophet. Nevertheless, all Jews - even without reaching the levels of prophets or even philosophers - truly believe in these pure abstract thoughts of His existence and His unity and they scoff at all that which is entirely based upon natural emotional experience. They understand that faith based entirely on innate human feelings and thoughts is worthless and transient representing only conjecture  -  G d in the image of man. Because of this knowledge gained from their forefathers - Jews understand this profound abstract philosophical issue and scorn emotion based faith... 

Eidah Hachareidis Protests Violent Hafganah That Led to Woman’s Injury: “They Have No Daas Torah”

 https://matzav.com/eidah-hachareidis-protests-violent-hafganah-that-led-to-womans-injury-they-have-no-daas-torah/

At a pre-Chanukah shiur at the Dushinsky Bais Medrash with Rav Moshe Shternbuch, introductory remarks were delivered by Rav Amram Oifman of the Eidah Hachareidis. He spoke about the woman, Mirel bas Rachel Leah, who was injured in a violent hafganah this past week.

Rav Amram vigorously protested the violence and the criminal acts of a group of extremists. Then, in the presence of Rav Shternbuch and the Dushinsky Rebbe, Tehillim was recited for her refuah.

Does UC Berkeley really have ‘Jew-free zones’? - explainer

 https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/antisemitism/article-718992

It seemed like a headline out of the 19th century: a warning of “Jew-free zones” at the University of California-Berkeley.

That’s the phrase being employed by some prominent pro-Israel groups this week to describe a dispute at UC Berkeley’s law school, where nine student groups recently voted to adopt by-laws that state they will not invite any visiting speakers to campus who “hold views in support of Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine.”

But is the “Jew-free” label accurate? Not according to Jewish leadership at the university. Here’s a rundown of the controversy, and where people have come down on it.

Capital punishment - Rav Moshe Feinstein

 Igros Moshe (C.M. 2:68): … The Torah reserves capital punishment for those sins which are very serious such as murder, kidnapping, sexually prohibited relations and idolatry. The perpetrator in these cases is unrestrained and is capable of doing whatever disgusting and cruel acts in the world that are in his heart that he thinks are for his benefit. However the death penalty is not administered out of hatred to evildoers or fear for the welfare of society because Bava Metzia (83b) tells us that G d will punish transgressors. That in fact is the halacha as poskened by the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:9) as well as all other poskim. So on the one hand the purpose of capital punishment is to let people know the severity of these prohibitions so that they will not transgress them. On the other hand the laws of capital punishment emphasize the importance of each soul and other concerns. Therefore we are commanded that only the Sanhedrin with proper semicha can judge these cases. Only the greatest people in Torah scholarship and other knowledge receive this semicha. In addition to their knowledge they also need to have perfected their character and be very humble as well as G d fearing people. They also need to hate money and love the truth as well as wonderful people who are beloved by all…They don’t have any imperfections or bad reputations and they are very merciful. That is why very old people are not appointed judges because they have forgotten the stress of raising children. Also people without children are not appointed because they lack mercy to some degree and they will be too angry at those who have committed sins.  Even these great and good people cannot judge unless they constitute a Sanhedrin of 23 people.  However it is not enough there are 23 such people to make a Sanhedrin. They also need to have before them 3 rows of very great Torah scholars who are not yet great enough to be part of the Sanhedrin – but are almost great enough. This is to protect the Sanhedrin from making a mistake in judgment. That is because when these three rows of scholars think that the Sanhedrin is mistaken in their ruling of innocence they will protest and will not listen at all to their words. Another safeguard against making a mistake is that they do not convict based on circumstantial evidence – no matter how convincing. They only convict a person based on two valid witnesses who have not the slightest bias in the matter... Furthermore the witnesses are warned concerning the severity of the sin of false testimony as well as the seriousness of the sin of murder so that they are very afraid of mistakenly convicting or mistakenly declaring the suspected murderer innocent. Even with all of this the witnesses also have to warn the person against murder and the suspected murderer has to acknowledge the warning by saying that even though he is aware of the seriousness off the crime he is still doing it. As a consequence of all these safeguards, only once in many years would someone be convicted of murder. In addition it was impossible to judge capital cases unless the Temple existed and that the Sanhedrin of 71 of the greatest scholars was in session on the Temple Mount. In fact capital cases were not judged even in those countries where the king gave the Jews permission to judge their own people according to the law of the Torah.  As a consequence of these two factors there were almost no Jewish murderers because of the awareness of the severity of the prohibition of murder and because they were educated by means of the Torah and the punishments of the Torah to understand the seriousness of the crime. They were not simply afraid of punishment in the sense of getting caught but were afraid of the crime itself. However this use of the Torah system to run society was only when the crime of murder was not common but was simply the result of someone’s great lust or some quarrel concerning money or honor. But when people killed simply because it was viewed as an insignificant thing and the murderer was simply a callous and cruel person or similarly if there was a great deal of murders and wickedness – then a different system of law was utilized that was concerned with the pragmatic question of stopping killing and the goal became saving the society.