The Trump Audiotape Explains Why He Had to Be Stopped

 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-trump-audiotape-explains-why-he-had-to-be-stopped/

And nobody compelled him to be so careless and stupid, either: You know who didn’t record Donald Trump showing off classified information? The federal government, that’s who. The man who agreed to that was none other than Donald Trump. And yet, with full knowledge he is being taped and full knowledge that he is about to discuss extremely classified material, he blunders onward. There is a moment in the interview, before Trump begins spilling state secrets to settle personal beefs, where he pathetically says “this is off the record,” as if one can skirt the problems with revealing classified information to acquaintances by a quick “so I can trust you guys, right?”

Trump’s version of US election law rejected once and for all

 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/trump-elections-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html

The news Tuesday is that the US Supreme Court squarely rejected the fringe legal theory by which far-right activists and supporters of Trump hoped to be able to ignore election outcomes.

Republicans Need to Accept Trump Is Clearly Guilty

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-need-to-accept-trump-is-clearly-guilty?ref=home

“Ooooh, Donald Trump used the wrong fork at dinner! Hit him with life in prison,” my relative will snark. “Oh no, you didn’t see Trump use his turn signal! Give him 30 years!”

This is a pretty standard Republican take on the allegations against their party’s de facto leader: Maybe he did what he’s accused of doing, but probably he didn’t, and the prosecution is nothing but political persecution, so it shouldn’t happen regardless. The possibility of guilt goes unacknowledged or ignored outright.

Yiftach - godol hador - was an am haaetz

 Yiftach was an am haaretz.  Shabbos night I mentioned the question to Rav Malinowtiz. He said there is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to whether Yiftach in fact sacrificed his daughter. He added that according to the view that he sacrificed his daughter he was definitely an am haaretz - He gave me two seforim Daas Mikrah and Daas Sofrim and told me to look up the Malbim and Abarbanel. And added that for such issues he usually uses Aspaklaria - which the shul didn't have and I obviously couldn't use the computer.

Anyway. Das Mikrah and Daas Sofrim both said he sacrified his daughter according to Chazal. Daas Sofrim said, "Yiftach was an am haaretz who became pious." Then I looked up the Malbim. The Malbim gave a whole drasha about how he didn't kill his daughter but ended by saying, "However the view of Chazal is the he did in fact sacrifice his daughter." I looked up Redak who gave a long derasha to say he didn't kill his daughter but ended, "But Chazal say he did sacrifice is daughter and if they have a mesora on this then it has to be accepted."

There is a gemora in Taanis (4a) that says he killed his daughter. Tanach says that he attracted to him a gang of bums. From this verse, Chazal say we see that birds of a feather flock together.

ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים, מנא הדא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דקלא בישא לגבי קינא דשרכי... שנוי בנביאים ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים... (שופטים פרק יא, סו)

כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, שלא יהיה בכם שום ליצנות, שלא תבא לידי חיוב, ממי אתה למד, מיפתח, מה כתיב בו והוא בן אשה זונה... ובשביל שהיה בו שום של ליצנות, נפלו בו כל האוכלוסין... (תצא ג)

Aspaklaria is http://www.aspaklaria.info

Medrash Tanchuma says he was an am haaretz

כיון שבקש לקרבה היתה בוכה לפניו, אמרה לו בתו, אבי, יצאתי לקראתך בשמחה ואתה שוחט אותי, שמא כתב הקב"ה בתורה שיהו ישראל מקריבין לפני הקב"ה נפשות אדם... מן הבהמה ולא מן האדם. אמר לה, בתי נדרתי והיה היוצא, שמא כל הנודר יכול הוא שלא לשלם נדרו, אמרה ליה והרי יעקב אבינו שנדר כל אשר תתן לי וגו' (בראשית כ"ח), ונתן לו הקב"ה שנים עשר בנים, שמא הקריב להקב"ה אחד מהם, ולא עוד אלא חנה שאמרה ותדר נדר וגו' (שמואל א' א'), שמא הקריבה את בנה לפני הקב"ה, כל הדברים האלה אמרה לו ולא שמע לה. כיון שראתה שלא שמע לה, אמרה לו הניחני וארד אצל בית דין, שמא ימצאו פתח לנדרך, שנאמר הרפה ממני שנים חדשים, ואלכה וירדתי על ההרים וגו', אמר רב זכריה, וכי יש אדם יורד על ההרים, והלא בני אדם עולים להרים, אלא אלו סנהדרין, כמה שנאמר (מיכה ו') שמעו הרים את ריב ה'. הלכה אצלם ולא מצאו פתח ליפתח ולהתיר לו את נדרו, בעוון ששחט משבט אפרים, ועליו הוא אומר (משלי כ"ח) גבר רש ועושק דלים מטר סוחף ואין להם, זה יפתח שהיה רש בתורה כגרופו של שקמה, שהיה עושק את הדלים, שנאמר ויאמרו לו אמור נא שבולת וגו' והיה שוחטן, לפיכך מטר סוחף אין להם, שהיה לו מי שיתיר את נדרו, אלא ודאי ואין להם, שהעלים הקב"ה את ההלכה, שלא ימצאו פתח להתיר לו את נדרו. עלה ושחטה, ורוח הקדש צווחת נפשות הייתי רוצה שתקריב לפני, אשר לא ציויתי ולא עלתה על לבי... (בחוקתי ה)

The sources i.e. Rishonim who say he didn't sacrifice his daughter are going against Chazal. This is a clear example of what Rav Dessler has said, that those Rishonim who give an explanation contrary to Chazal are doing it as apologetics for those confused people who can't accept Chazal and as long the explanation doesn't contradict halacha is ok to do such.

Rabbeinu Chananel explicitly states he was not a ben Torah

 רבנו בחיי על ויקרא פרק כז פסוק כט

ומעתה צא ולמד טעותו של יפתח שטעה בכאן בהקריבו את בתו עולה, כי הוא חשב שכשם שמלך ישראל הנודר או המחרים דבר, חרמו או נדרו חל להמית איש או אנשים, וגם כל העובר על חרמו חייב מיתה, הוא הדין גם כן כשנודר בעת מלחמתו לעשות זבח מאיש או אנשים שיחול הנדר, ובודאי טעה בזה טעות גדול כי כשיחול חרם המלך והסנהדרין ושבועתם דוקא על המורדים בהם או על העובר על גזירתם ותקנותיהם, אבל אינו חל לעשות קרבן מדבר שאינו ראוי לקרבן, וזהו שאמרו חז"ל (בראשית רבה ס, ג) אפילו הקדש דמים לא היה חייב, ומעשה שעשה הוכיח שלא היה בן תורה:

Bottom line - the sources clearly indicate that he was an ignorant man who killed his daughter because he didn't know basic Torah halacha

Seder HaDoros notes that Yiftach's daughter was married to Cham (Noach's son) and that her father schechted her and that R Chanina ben Tradyon was a tikun for Yiftach and that his why he was burned alive. 

Weiss Dodelson: Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky "Smear campaign against the Weiss Family should cease and desist"

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky released this letter on Friday November 29, 2013

Guest Post from a concerned friend of the Weiss Family

This letter is far more important than one may think

Rav Shmuel writes that “as of two weeks ago, serious negotiations have been underway to resolve the Weiss-Dodelson, dispute” and therefore the “public smear campaign against the Weiss family...should cease and desist. It is unacceptable."

Weiss supporters are delighted that Rav Shmuel has taken a public stance after he and his son Rav Sholom have over the past two weeks experienced first hand how the Dodelsons “negotiate in good faith."

But what does this letter really say?

It says that although there is no formal binding arbitration taking place, so long as there are serious negotiations, the Weisses may not be attacked. Certainly Rav Shmuel is not suggesting that the Dodelsons may unilaterally disrupt the negotiations and resume their “smear campaign”; if he were saying that his letter would merely be a tool to encourage the breakdown of negotiations. No one would accuse him of that.

But what if “serious negotiations” were actually taking place earlier? It would seem that Rav Shmuel’s denouncement of the smear campaign would apply to that time, too.

There is ample email documentation of ongoing interaction between the Dodelson’s lawyers and other representatives with Rabbi Greenwald from June through mid-October showing that “serious negotiations” were, in fact taking place. All the while, the Dodelsons were engaged in an extensive “smear campaign,” including establishing numerous websites, doing mailings, and hiring a public relations.

Then, in mid-October the process was unilaterally scuttled by the Dodelsons, and their New York Post story trashing the frum community and their Newsweek story attacking halachah ran.

But the truth is, even a year ago the two sides went to Rav Yaakov Bender, but he was pressured by the Dodelsons to withdraw from arbitrating the case. Maybe Rav Shmuel’s psak should start back then.

The bottom line is that Rav Shmuel’s letter seems to support Rav Dovid Feinstein’s psak.

Weiss Dodelson: A reader questions my objectivity and asks about blindly following rabbinic authority

The question of whether I am biased in the Weiss  Dodelson case has been raised a number of times - primarily from Dodelson's supporters. I just received a letter which clearly expresses this concern so I have copied it from the comments section to a separate post. It also asks what happens when moral imperatives contradict rabbinic pronouncements as expressed by the Tzitz Eliezer (14:98) as posted elsewhere

Milhouse Trabajo wrote:

 R Eidensohn, u seem so great when it comes to the scourge of child abuse, yet here it seems like you are nogea be'davar. can u disclose whether you have a horse in this race (whether as family to the Weiss's or more generally with respect to withholding Get's in the case of Ma'os Aly?). Per your point here from the Tzitz Eliezer, i wonder if u would have a problem if a Rebbe said that its a mitzvah to molest little boys (and your da'as should just be batul to the torah). if something is morally wrong in someone's eyes (assuming he isnt nogeah be'davar and cant adequately judge), Do you believe that Hashem will have Tayna for his refusing to accept that the Torah and Hashem's will is different than the way that a bunch of man have decided how to interpret words that can clearly be interpreted otherwise? This is not clearly biblical/divine, but many drashot and interpretations.

 My answer:

To answer your first question my concern is with halacha and yoshrus. The Torah requires you not to stand idly by the blood of your fellow man. In this case the issue is a clear halacha that when a woman unilaterally leaves her husband taking their child and saying "you are not a bad person just not for me" that there is no obligation for the husband to give a get. The kol koreh that was produced as well as the siruv that was issued is halachic nonsense.

I am not related to the Weiss's and I have posted over the years criticism of Rav Reuven Feinstein's involvment with Tropper. I have criticized Rav Ahron Schecter for his involvment in the Hersh case. I have criticized Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky regarding Tropper, reporting child abuse and support of Tamar Epstein etc etc.

Why aren't you accusing the signers of the kol koreh being nogea be'davar? Why aren't you accusing Lakewood's leadership of going out of their way to support a relative - when there is no halachic justification? Why aren't you criticizing the Dodelson's for conductng a smear campagin which has no precedent in American Jewish history?

Why is your only suspicion that I must be nogeah be'davar because I am presenting both sides of the story - including the massive halachic material which supports the Weiss's?! Perhaps you are noge'ah bedavar because you are supporting the Dodelson's and can't understand that there is another side of this story?

If you have been following this blog you are aware that I have extensively covered the Friedman Epstein case for the same reason.

Your second point is a very important question. The simple answer is that of course it is wrong as I have fully documented in my books on child abuse and my postings on this blog. In fact this goes back to your first question. I am concerned with the abuse of rabbinic authority when it is used to demand that people do things which are against the halacha.

Rabbi Rakeffet once told me that Rav Solveitchik was upset by the passive acceptance of rabbinic authority in Europe that led to the death of many during the Holocaust and therefore he encouraged independent thinking.

There has to be a balance between obeying rabbinic authority which is unsupported by halachic texts or mesora and following moral principles and halachic knowledge. That balance is what I am striving to ascertain in the various cases presented on this blog.

There is a Kotzer maaseh that a major talmid chachom was visiting the Rebbe. When he came to shul Shabbos morning the Rebbe gave him a kiddush cup and told him to make kiddush before davening. He initially protested but was ordered in front of the entire shul to make kiddush by the Rebbe himself. He took the cup and started in a shaky voice to say kiddush. The Rebbe knocked the cup out of his hand and said,"Don't you know this is not the time for kiddush?"

Bottom line we are all soldiers in G-d's army but sometimes one is required to disobey orders from one's commanding officers - that are clearly wrong. Of course one has to be prepared to suffer the consequences if he is wrong and sometimes even if he is right. 

Fox News host suggests Trump may have leaked audio in classified documents case

 https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4069757-fox-news-host-suggests-trump-may-have-leaked-audio-in-classified-documents-case/

Fox News host Steve Doocy suggested former President Trump may have been behind the leak of an audio recording showing Trump talking about his handling of classified documents.

“You know what? If Trump thinks it’s an exoneration of him, perhaps somebody on his side actually did the leaking to CNN and Maggie Haberman,” Doocy said Tuesday morning.

Lab-grown meat doesn’t involve slaughter. Does that mean it’s kosher or halal?

 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/27/business/lab-grown-meat-kosher-halal/index.html

For Rabbi Menachem Genack, CEO and Rabbinic administrator of OU Kosher, which has certified over one million products in 105 countries, the rules are straightforward enough: If the source is Kosher, the cultivated product is Kosher.

For cultivated meat to be considered kosher, it “would require that it came from a kosher slaughtered animal.” Chicken that is grown from cells taken from a kosher, unfertilized egg would be considered kosher, he said. Gennack, like Hussaini, said that cells coming from a live animal would not be permissible. Neither would cultivated pork.

And mixing meat with milk? Not allowed. At least, not from the OU’s perspective, though “there are different opinions,” Genack acknowledged. Some say that cultivated meat could be considered “completely pareve.” In Jewish law, pareve foods, such as fish, fruit and vegetables, are not considered meat or milk, and so can be consumed with either meat or dairy.

Supreme Court denies state legislatures the unchecked power to set election rules

 https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/27/supreme-court-rejects-independent-state-legislature-theory-00103793

A particularly robust reading of the theory — which the court turned aside — would have empowered state legislatures to make decisions on all aspects of elections, from congressional lines to how people register to vote and cast a ballot, without any opportunity for challengers to contest those decisions in state courts under state laws or constitutions. Opponents of the theory argued that it could have led to unchecked partisan gerrymandering, and laws that would make it harder for people to vote.

It’s Not Looking Good for Trump’s Coup Lawyer John Eastma

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/its-not-looking-good-for-trumps-coup-lawyer-john-eastman?ref=home?ref=home

Eastman was the author of a now-infamous memo in which he argued Vice President Mike Pence could single-handedly reject electoral college votes to buy Republican state legislatures time to overturn Joe Biden’s 2020 victory. And his six-page memo laying out how Pence could reject the electoral college is the heart of the case.

The idea was to pull the plug on the traditionally seamless transfer of power from one American president to another. The coup failed both in courtrooms and in Congress, which turned into a literal battlefield with Capitol Police and rioters on Jan. 6, 2021. But Eastman has mostly avoided any real repercussions besides reputation to damage—until now.

Donald Trump Slams 'Deranged' Prosecutor Jack Smith Over Leaked Audio Files

 https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-slams-deranged-prosecutor-jack-smith-over-leaked-audio-files-1809239

Trump later added: "COULD SOMEBODY PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE DERANGED, TRUMP HATING JACK SMITH, HIS FAMILY, AND HIS FRIENDS, THAT AS PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, I COME UNDER THE PRESIDENTIAL RECORDS ACT, AS AFFIRMED BY THE CLINTON SOCKS CASE, NOT BY THIS PSYCHOS' FANTASY OF THE NEVER USED BEFORE ESPIONAGE ACT OF 1917.'SMITH' SHOULD BE LOOKING AT CROOKED JOE BIDDEN AND ALL OF THE CRIMES THAT HE HAS PERPETRATED ON THE AMERICAN PUBLIC, INCLUDING THE MILLIONS & MILLIONS OF DOLLARS HE EXTORTED FROM FOREIGN COUNTRIES!"

Biden, allies pushed out Ukrainian prosecutor because he didn't pursue corruption cases

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

At the heart of Congress' probe into the president's actions is his claim that former Vice President and 2020 Democratic frontrunner Joe Biden strong-armed the Ukrainian government to fire its top prosecutor in order to thwart an investigation into a company tied to his son, Hunter Biden. 

It wasn't because Shokin was investigating a natural gas company tied to Biden's son; it was because Shokin wasn't pursuing corruption among the country's politicians, according to a Ukrainian official and four former American officials who specialized in Ukraine and Europe.

Shokin's inaction prompted international calls for his ouster and ultimately resulted in his removal by Ukraine's parliament.

Trump Revives False Narrative on Biden and Ukraine

 https://www.factcheck.org/2020/10/trump-revives-false-narrative-on-biden-and-ukraine/

Trump repeatedly cites Biden’s January 2018 remarks as evidence that the former vice president pressured Ukraine to fire Shokin because he was investigating Burisma.

But, as we said, the evidence shows Biden was carrying out U.S. policy, and the United States was not alone in pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin.

It’s important to note, too, that Trump is citing from unverified emails that were allegedly obtained in a bizarre way by his own lawyer. According to the Post, the emails were found on a laptop that had been abandoned at a Delaware computer repair store, and the shop owner turned it over to the FBI but before doing so he “made a copy of the hard drive and later gave it to former Mayor Rudy Giuliani’s lawyer, Robert Costello.”

As we documented earlier this year, Giuliani has visited Ukraine and worked with current and former officials there in an attempt to obtain information damaging to Biden.

This 2016 letter proves that GOP attacks on Biden over Ukraine are nonsense

 https://www.vox.com/2019/10/3/20896869/trump-biden-ukraine-2016-letter-portman-johnson

Trump’s core argument against Joe Biden is that then-Vice President Biden improperly used the power of his office to get a Ukrainian general prosecutor fired in order to stop him from investigating a Ukrainian gas company that Biden’s son Hunter served on the board of.

The reality is that the Obama administration — as well as many other Western European officials — wanted the prosecutor, a man named Viktor Shokin, removed because he was believed to be trying to stymie anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine. In other words, if anything, Biden’s efforts could have put his son in more legal jeopardy, not less.

Yet the conspiracy theory persists and has been repeated by Trump’s Republican allies on Fox News and in Congress. But it turns out Republicans have failed to mention one important thing: At least three GOP senators at the time also wanted that Ukrainian prosecutor fired.