Friday, July 28, 2023
Supreme Court striking down reasonableness bill 'uncharted territory,' PM says
"We had to put Israeli democracy back on an equal footing with other democracies. The essence of democracy is the balance between the will of the majority and the rights of the minority. This balance has been violated over the last 20 years, because we have the most activist court on the planet," Netanyahu said.
Five revelations from new Trump charges
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/4124168-revelations-from-new-trump-charges/
Federal prosecutors’ superseding indictment against former President Trump in his classified documents case on Thursday has brought to light several new charges and revelations.
Thursday, July 27, 2023
Tish‘ah be-Av and the Agunah Problem by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira
The Gemara, Ta‘anit 30a, prohibits most areas of Torah study on Tish‘ah be-Av. One of the few permitted exceptions, as identified by Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 554, se’if katan 3, is the passage in Gittin 55b-58a regarding the Temple destruction. The conclusion of that passage – an exposition of Micah 2:2 – is interpreted by Maharsha (Chiddushei Aggadot) as declaring that if even one husband is wrongfully pressured to divorce his wife [in violation of Exodus 20:14] or if even one marriage is poisoned by adultery – then the entire Jewish People is held accountable to collectively protest. Thus, it emerges that Tish‘ah be-Av is a time to reaffirm our commitment to the sanctity of marriage – and to eschew half-baked solutions to the agunah problem – as I previously wrote at <http://daattorah.blogspot.
Upon careful reflection, it emerges that there is no contradiction between the aforementioned Maharsha and Maharsham regarding the agunah-problem message of Tish‘ah be-Av [and, poetically enough, their works carry almost identical names]. Where the Oral Torah declares that an agunah can remarry, such as the case of Maharsham in which he discovered sufficient circumstantial evidence to presume the first husband to be dead, then it is indeed a great mitzvah to enable this remarriage. But where the first husband is demonstrably both alive and innocent of any wrongdoing, then Maharsha directs us to respect that first (and only) marriage.
For this reason, R. J. David Bleich, responding to the 1992 New York Get Law [a well-meaning but unfortunately less-than-successful attempt to solve the agunah problem], comments as follows [available at <https://traditiononline.org/
"Regrettably, instead of serving as a panacea resolving the plight of the agunah, the Get Law has itself created countless agunot. It is precisely because of concern for agunot that the Get Law cannot be allowed to stand."
In other words, we must always take into consideration the Maharsha vs. Maharsham dichotomy, thereby distinguishing true from imagined solutions to the agunah problem. That is why my own prenup proposal [available at <http://www.scribd.com/doc/
 | Halakhic analysis of prenuptial agreements, leading to a combination of two halakhically kosher prenuptial agreements to benefit the Jewish wife |
Continuing on this theme, I would like to highlight my recent exchange with R. Heshey Zelcer in Hakirah Vol. 28 (Spring 2020) [available at <https://hakirah.org/
“At the initial session, Beth Din shall outline the issues between the Parties and make a determination of the interim payments necessary to ensure that the lifestyle of the un- emancipated children of the household (if any) can be maintained, and that they can continue to attend yeshiva.”
Rabbi Sternbuch et al do not raise an objection to this paragraph, presumably because it does not explicitly require the husband to pay the wife until he grants her a get. However, as one can discern from the aforementioned Hakirah exchange, Rabbi Zelcer effectively interprets this clause to in fact mean that the Beth Din will direct the husband to pay the wife until he grants a get. And so, the Yashar Prenup seems to present a problem that is essentially identical to that of the RCA prenup, the latter representing a prenup that Rabbi Sternbuch and others have identified would produce an invalid get. [See <https://hebrewbooks.org/60970
A careful examination of Rabbi Sternbuch’s letter of approbation for the Yashar Prenup [available at <https://yasharinitiative.org/
Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute of Medical Research, a pavilion of the Jewish General Hospital in Montreal, Canada.
Wednesday, July 26, 2023
The Izbicer Rebbe and Freewill
https://www.theapj.com/the-izbicer-rebbe-and-freewill-2/
What the Izbicer demonstrates is that it is possible for agents to be free, relative to the fiction that they live in, whilst wholly determined from a God’s eye view. On the other hand, the Izbicer admits that we can’t actually break out of our perspective to see the sense in which we are determined. Nevertheless, he holds that we sometimes get some sort of mystical glimpse; akin to the Wittgensteinian idea of having something shown to you that can’t be said. The sense in which we are free is very real and open to human comprehension. The sense in which we are determined is somewhat closed to us, just as it is closed, so to speak, to Hamlet. But, in order to illustrate this notion of a mystical glimpse, let me share an example that the Izbicer uses himself.[4]
Free will and marriage - Rambam
Rambam (Shemona Perakim Perek 8) Men are, however, very often prone to err in supposing that many of their actions, in reality the result of their own free will, are forced upon them, as, for instance, marrying a certain woman, or acquiring a certain amount of money. Such a supposition is untrue. If a man marriesy a permitted woman legally, then she becomes his lawful wife, and if he does this for procreation then he has done a mitzva. God, however, does not decree the fulfillment of a mitzva. If, on the other hand, a man has married a forbidden woman he has committed a sin. But God does not decree that a man shall sin.
Rambam (Teshuva #436): … For example the apparent contradiction to free will represented by the gemora which indicates that one’s spouse is predestined is to be understood as being dependent upon merit. In other words if this man or woman does a mitzva which gives them the merit of having such a spouse—then G‑d arranges that it happen that they marry each other. On the other hand if they so something which merits the punishment of having a marriage without peace and harmony—that will also occur…
Bashert - is your spouse chosen by G-d?
From the following sources it is apparent that the concept is not clear. In fact someone went to Rav Aharaon Schecter about going ahead with a shidduch based on the fact that she was sure that the boy was her bashert. Rav Aharon responded, "there is no such thing". Obviously he was not disgarding the classic texts - but was simply saying the concept has no significance on a practical level. According to the following sources, even though they present the idea that your spouse is designated in Heaven - there is no guarantee that you will marry that spouse. Even if you do there is no guarantee that you will have a happy and fulfilling marriage. Shalom bayis is not related to marrying your bashert. Consequently it is a concept which should not have any significance either in determining whom to marry or whether to stay marry. If you fall in love with someone - that doesn't mean it is your bashert. If marry and find yourself strongly attracted to someone other than your spouse - it is not because this other person is your "true" bashert. The only significance I can think of is as a compliment or to calm anxiety about getting married.
Just found this from Rabbi Rabbi Pruzansky on the OU website
Many years ago, I heard Rav Ahron Soloveichik zt”l explain that bashert (in the Talmud’s language, bat ploni l’ploni) guarantees only one thing: Hashem arranges that you encounter that person. Bashert does not guarantee that you will marry that person, or that the marriage will be a happy and fulfilling one; those depend on our free choice and good middot (character traits). And even what we do after that initial encounter – pursue that person or ignore him/her; look for the good or obsess over flaws – also depends on our bechirah (free choice). As such, it is probably best to remove the bashert issue from our calculations, as it obfuscates instead of clarifies. It should remain in the realm of divine secrets to which we have no access, and which plays no role in our deliberations.
Sotah (2a): When Reish Lakish began talking about the Sotah (suspected adulteress) he asserted that a person only marries a woman according to the nature of his deeds… R’ Yochanon said that it is as difficult to make a couple as splitting the Sea… But this can’t be true since Rav said that 40 days before the creation of an embryo a Heavenly voice (bas kol) proclaims that a particular woman is to marry a particular man, that a particular house and field is to belong to a particular person? The resolution of this contradiction is that the announcement of the bas kol applies to the first marriage while the matching according to deeds refers to the second marriage.
Mo'ed Koton (18b): Shmuel said that it is permitted to get engaged during Chol HaMoed because if it were required to wait until after the Yom Tov a rival might get engaged to her first… But did Shmuel say that we are worried that another might engage her - because Shmuel has said that every day a Heavenly voice announces which man will marry which woman?...While it is true that one’s spouse is predetermined but it is possible that a rival will get engaged to her by means of prayer. For example Rava once heard a man praying for a particular woman. Rava told him not to pray in this manner since if she is his predestined wife there is no need to pray for her. However if she is not his predestined than he is going against Providence. Later he overhead him praying that either she should die or that he should die before she marry another man [he didn’t want to see her marrying another man – Rav Menashe Klein]....Didn’t I tell you not to pray to marry a particular woman? There are proofs to my assertion from Torah, Neviim and Kesuvim that G‑d determines which woman a man should marry. From the Torah: Then Laban and Bethuel answered and said, The thing is from G‑d (Bereishis 24:50). From Neviim: But his [Samson's] father and mother knew not that it was from G‑d (Shoftim 14:4). And from Kesuvim: House and riches are the inheritance of fathers, but a prudent wife is from G‑d (Mishlei 19:14).
Sefer Chasidim (#521): Reuven arranged that Shimon should marry his daughter. However Shimon violated his promise and did not marry her. Even though Reuven’s daughter was embarrassed by this affair Reuven should view that it is for the good. The fact that Shimon married another woman indicates that the second woman was divinely decreed for Shimon. If Shimon had actually married Reuven’s daughter [when she was not intended for him] she would have had to die so that Shimon could marry the other woman. Therefore Reuven should not be upset and fight with Shimon because he broke the engagement. Reuven should not even look depressed since all marriages are determined by G‑d.
Pro and anti-reform protestors savor a moment of unity - editorial
https://www.jpost.com/opinion/article-752288
Suddenly, as the two sides headed in different directions, something beautiful happened: People began reaching out across the divider and shaking the hands of those passing on the opposite escalator. It was recognition that no matter what political path they follow, there is still a need for respect and recognition of what we all share.
Mazel is changed by G-d
Ohr HaChaim (Vayikra 26:12) And I will turn to you, etc." This is related to our Sages saying That Jews are not determined by Mazel. G-d uproots this mazel from one place and placed it in another place. So even though children life and livelihood are said to be controlled by mazel and not merit. G-d changes the Mazel This is why G-d had to say: "I will turn to you" before mentioning that He would make the Jewish people fruitful. The word “I will turn” is indicative of G-d personally involving Himself in the fertility of the Jewish people instead of leaving the matter in the hands of the agent He has appointed as part of the laws of nature to deal with such tasks. It is also possible that when the verse continues with "I will multiply you," that this refers to a second key G-'d holds in His hands, i.e. the key to livelihood. Adequate food assists physical growth. The word I will establish then refers to the third key G-d holds in His hands, the key to life and death. The word I will turn may thus be understood as G'd granting us access to all the three keys in His possession.
Haredi newspaper: 'We joined to promote the Draft Law, not the reform'
https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/374689
The haredi Hamodia newspaper on Wednesday morning rejected the attacks on the Agudat Yisrael faction, with which the paper is affiliated.
Agudat Yisrael, a hasidic faction, is one-half of the United Torah Judaism (UTJ) party. The other faction in the party is Lithuanian-haredi Degel Hatorah.
The attacks follow the submission of a proposal to pass Basic Law: Torah Study, which the paper says was submitted over ten days ago. Hamodia noted that Agudat Yisrael did not join the coalition in order to pass the judicial reform, but in order to advance a Draft Law.
UTJ proposes Basic Law to equate Torah studies with IDF service
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-752379
The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party (UTJ) proposed on Tuesday a Basic Law aimed at anchoring in law the exemption from IDF military service for students in religious academies (yeshivot).
The first clause of the bill, called Basic Law: Torah Study, says, "Torah study is a supreme value in the heritage of the Jewish people."
The second clause says, "The State of Israel as a Jewish state views the encouragement of Torah study and Torah students with utmost important, and regarding their rights and duties, those who dedicate themselves to studying Torah for an extended period should be viewed as having served a significant service to the State of Israel and the Jewish people."
Grassley faces criticism over release of FBI document
https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4119251-grassley-faces-criticism-over-release-of-fbi-document/
But that has in no way calmed the waters as Democrats increase their attacks over what they view as unsubstantiated claims that were already dismissed in full by the Trump administration.
Rav Reuven Feinstein proposes a Takanah - How does it deal with the disaster of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter?
1) that a takanah should be made that no one is allowed to get involved in a case when there's a reputable bais din presiding on a case, otherwise the koach of bais din gets diminished and causes anarchy.
2) that no letter should be signed without listening to both sides.
3) that in this case only the Baltimore bais din has the full picture.
========================================================
Questions regarding Rav Reuven Feinstein's proposal (by a number of readers)
1) Why is there a need of a Takana when what he is proposing is stated in the Shulchan Aruch?
a. If a duly constituted BD ruled—it should be over. Of course that BD should be supported in every which way.
b. Acccording to what he writes anyone can now say—and if so, you can be sure that anyone will now say—if they on one party’s “side”—that the BD’s pesak “is a din me’uvas”!
c. It is illogical to call for any person who wants to help when there is already a pesak BD to first hear both sides— that is what the BD did! Why would this person do a better job than the BD? How will this person ensure that HE will “hear “all the facts” from “all the parties”...? And if he comes to a different conclusion—he should help defy the BD?
4. The basic issue is that if you refuse to mention that there is a current problem then you need to pretend that the system itself needs fixing instead of the particular incident
