The End of the South Florida Dream

 https://www.newsweek.com/end-south-florida-dream-2039443

Buying a place on the South Florida coast has been a dream for millions of American retirees over the past decades and a main driver of in-migration to the state.

But now, a combination of factors—including a slowdown of the Florida housing market, rising HOA fees and higher property insurance premiums—is turning this dream into a nightmare for many Sunshine State homeowners.

Many are being forced to sell their homes and relocate, whether within or outside the state, while local lawmakers warn against a rise in homelessness among seniors in South Florida.

Prolonging life when cure is impossible

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.1) Question Concerning someone with cancer which is viewed as incurable and treatment will at best prolong his life for a few months is there an obligation to treat him to prolong his life for a short time during which  he is in terrible pain? Answer The patient should be informed about this and asked if he wants to undergo treatment  and live a life of suffering rather than die. If he wants he should be given the treatment. However if he doesn’t want a life of suffering he should not be given the treatment. However if he wants to prolong his life to enable him to be seen by a greater doctor or even if it is not a greater doctor but he wants to consult that doctor than he should be treated.

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.2) Question: What is considered temporary cure (chaye shaah). The importance of defining this is that if the doctor has two patients who have other treatable problems. Preference should be given to the patient who can live more than another year and thus hasn’t lost the presumption of life otherwise he is classified as a treifah. However once a patient is evaluated to be able to live for more than two years there is no difference to one who can be cured. The mere opinion of doctors that a person can’t live does not determine his status. In addition a doctor should give priority to the  patient that consulted him first as well as the one who is closer to his home. He if doesn’t know than he should he should make a lottery. 

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.3) Question: A patient who is judged to be able to live only 2 or three months, is it appropriate or possibly obligatory to treat him to prolong his life with a treatment which might kill him immediately or shorten his life? Answer:  I know no clear sources to answer this question.  Based on human reasoning, it would seem reasonable that he should only be given treatments that at least are clearly not  dangerous. According to this it would eliminate most operations both on internal organs as well as many operations on the limbs if the cancer has already spread which all entail a concern for danger. However, there is a clear source in the gemora (Keubos 77b) of an operation which is dangerous but is permitted since there is no other way to be cured. It is possible to rely on the view of an expert doctor who is presently treating the patient  even though there is no consensus among doctors and there is no time to wait for another doctor who might have an alternative treatment.  However a man who has no clear medical knowledge, his views are irrelevant and everything he suggests might actually cause harm. In the present case that you are asking about in which the patient , there is a treatment that 30% die within 7 days and 10% die within a number of days . That means that without this treatment they would have lived an additional  short time, This doesn’t necessarily mean that 60% were actually cured. Thus it is prohibited to give this treatment which apparently 40 % die from. It is permitted only if the doctors claim the patient will definitely die and this will definitely be beneficial meaning 60% are cured or at lease continue living even if in a weakened condition.  Even if only 50% are cured it is still worthwhile tp give. When there is nothing better.  Even if ths treatment is given. It should not be viewed as the only treatment and continued efforts should be made to find other treatments.  

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.4)Question A very sick person whom the doctors think will live  only at most another week has now developed a new illness such as pneumonia, is it permitted or even obligatory to treat the new illness? Answer It is obvious and clear that there is an obligation to cure him of the second condition in that which is possible to accomplish even when the original condition can not be cured. I don’t understand why you think this is even a question unless the treatment might make the first illness worse. If the doctors say they don’t know whether the treatment of the second illness will make the first illness worse  It depends whether they give a reason for the doubt. If they give a reason than you should be concerned. If they don’t have a reason but simply they never heard anything or ever saw it discussed in medical books than it has no significance to reject the view of doctors that treatment will help even if these doctors aren’t the top doctors bur might be ordinary people that are claiming the treatment works. While waiting for treatment it is important to feed the patient if he is hungry and to do everything under a doctors supervision. It is therefore prohibited to live in a place without a doctor. 

Will live only a few days and has a new medical problem is there an obligation to treat new problem?

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat II #75.4)Question A very sick person whom the doctors think will live  only at most another week has now developed a new illness such as pneumonia, is it permitted or even obligatory to treat the new illness? Answer It is obvious and clear that there is an obligation to cure him of the second condition in that which is possible to accomplish even when the original condition can not be cured. I don’t understand why you think this is even a question unless the treatment might make the first illness worse. If the doctors say they don’t know whether the treatment of the second illness will make the first illness worse  It depends whether they give a reason for the doubt. If they give a reason than you should be concerned. If they don’t have a reason but simply they never heard anything or ever saw it discussed in medical books than it has no significance to reject the view of doctors that treatment will help even if these doctors aren’t the top doctors bur might be ordinary people that are claiming the treatment works. While waiting for treatment it is important to feed the patient if he is hungry and to do everything under a doctors supervision. It is therefore prohibited to live in a place without a doctor. 

Geshem or Gashem?

 Igros Moshe (OC IV #40.15) Question How to pronounce “morid haGeshem” is it with a segel (geshem) or kametz (gashem)?  Answer: It needs to be said with a kametz under the gimmel (gashem) since it  is the end of the sentence and this is halacha l’Moshe M’Sinai 

Rabbi Yehuda Spitz (Ohr Someach) Several other authorities, including the Vilna Gaon (see Ashrei Ha-Ish 20:30; however, Tefillah Kehilchasah writes that there is a kabalah from the Gra that he said geshem), the Netziv (see Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:58), the Chafetz Chaim (cited in Ashrei Ha-Ish 20, 30, quoting Kovetz Mevakshei Torah Vol. 43 p. 57), Rav Aharon Kotler, the Shaarim Metzuyanim B’Halacha, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Tefillah Kehilchasah 12:51; this is known as a kalballah from the Leshem), agree with this analysis. This is also how the word is presented in the siddur of the Arizal. Several other contemporary authorities, including Rav Yakov Emden, Rav Yakov Kaminetsky Levushei Mordechai, the Steipler, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the Minchas Yitzchak, and Rav Moshe Sternbuch rule according to this custom.

Pronunciation of Gashem/Geshem

 https://dinonline.org/2011/11/07/pronunciation-of-gashemgeshem/

Rav Moshe Feinstein (Orach Chaim 4:40:15) quotes a rule cited by several Rishonim, including Tosafos, the Ran and the Rosh, that any word before a pause (esnachta) or period (sof pasuk) becomes vowelized with a kametz (hence: gashem), instead of a segol. The example given is the word "eretz": when it is the last word in a sentence or right before a pause, it changes to "aretz."

Because the word geshem is at the end of a sentence, its proper reading is thus "gashem."

Several other authorities, including the Vilna Gaon (see Ashrei Ha-Ish 20:30; however, Tefillah Kehilchasah writes that there is a kabalah from the Gra that he said geshem), the Netziv (see Teshuvos Vehanhagos 2:58), the Chafetz Chaim (cited in Ashrei Ha-Ish 20, 30, quoting Kovetz Mevakshei Torah Vol. 43 p. 57), Rav Aharon Kotler, the Shaarim Metzuyanim B’Halacha, and Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv (Tefillah Kehilchasah 12:51; this is known as a kalballah from the Leshem), agree with this analysis. This is also how the word is presented in the siddur of the Arizal.

Yet, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky is of the opinion that since this part of Shmoneh Esrei is called “gevuros geshamim,” meaning strengths of G-d (plural), the mentioning of the rain should not be considered the end of that sentence, but rather the beginning of the list of various powers (making rain fall, sustaining life, and so on), especially as the falling of rain and sustaining of life are interrelated, both of them referring to providing sustenance.

Therefore, he posits that the proper reading here is “geshem,” the word maintaining its usual form. He adds that this pronunciation is found generations earlier, in the siddurim of the Shulchan Aruch Ha-Rav, and the VaYaas Avraham of Tchechnov. This is also the way the word is presented in the siddur of Rav Yaakov Emden, which is known for its meticulous grammar.

Although they do not expound on the reasoning behind their practice, several other contemporary authorities, including the Levushei Mordechai, the Steipler, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, the Minchas Yitzchak, and Rav Moshe Sternbuch rule according to this custom.

Abortion request to doctor

Igros Moshe (CM II #73.8) Question Concerning those women in present times who are not properly observant because of our many sins who want to have an abort their pregnancy. Answer This is clearly prohibited as violating the prohibition against killing and it is also prohibited for a doctor to even assist not only for Jewish women but also non Jewish women. Because bnei Noach are also prohibited to kill the unborn. In fact the prohibition is more stringent for a ben Noach because this is a capital crime for them and thus it is prohibited to assist them and also violates the prohibition of lifnei ivair One should not assist in any way - even to notify her that it is possible to have an abortion elsewhere even for a non Jew. Even if there is concern that this might cause hatred (aivah). In fact there is not a problem of causing hatred when it is explained that he doesn’t want to assist in killing because even non Jews know that abortion should not be done and many countries prohibit it as murder, Thus a religious doctor can just say that he doesn’t want to be involved in abortion as this is not a curative procedure and even is dangerous to the woman.

Kennedy’s Alarming Prescription for Bird Flu on Poultry Farms

 https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/18/health/kennedy-bird-flu.html

The health secretary has suggested allowing the virus to spread, so as to identify birds that may be immune. Such an experiment would be disastrous, scientists say.

Trump deports hundreds of alleged Venezuelan gang members. Did he defy a court order?

 https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/immigration/article302170974.html

According to the Associated Press, the U.S. is paying $6 million to harbor alleged Tren de Aragua members, around $20,000 per inmate.

Adelys Ferro, executive director of the Venezuelan American Caucus, an advocacy group committed to supporting the Venezuelan community that works in alliance with the left-leaning Latino Victory Project, said there isn’t concrete evidence that that hundreds of Venezuelans in the United States are Tren de Aragua.

“It is unacceptable, inhumane, and extremely dangerous for an entire community to be labeled as potential members of Tren de Aragua under a law where any accusation made against a Venezuelan citizen cannot be challenged in any court,” Ferro said.

She said the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act could lead to deportations based on mere accusations, without evidence or due process.

Families of migrants who believe their relatives were deported by ICE say they weren't gang members

 https://abcnews.go.com/US/families-migrants-relatives-deported-ice-gang-members/story?id=119892593

Sanchez said that her husband is being unfairly targeted by the Trump administration for being Venezuelan and having tattoos, after Trump on Saturday said he was invoking the 18th century Alien Enemies Act to deport alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua.

She provided ABC News with documents that show Tiapa does not have any criminal records in Venezuela.

Trump is nearing a sharp fork in the road to Ukraine peace

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/18/trump-putin-ukraine-peace-talks/

President Donald Trump appears far more eager for a peace deal in Ukraine than does Russian President Vladimir Putin. That’s the obvious takeaway from Tuesday’s two-hour call between the two leaders.

Trump comes across as an avid suitor in his brief, upbeat readout of the conversation, describing the talks as “very good and productive.” Putin is more guarded in the longer Kremlin version, friendly but unyielding on his basic demands. He agreed to a 30-day pause in “attacks on energy infrastructure facilities.” Ukraine had endorsed Trump’s proposal for a ceasefire on all fronts for that period.

5 takeaways from Trump-Putin call on Ukraine ceasefire

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5201481-trump-putin-phone-call-takeaways/

President Trump and Russian leader Vladimir Putin held a highly anticipated phone call Tuesday, after Ukraine last week agreed to a U.S.-proposed 30-day ceasefire in the war with Moscow. 

Putin rejected that proposal Tuesday, according to the Kremlin’s readout of the call, but responded positively to Trump’s proposal of a more limited 30-day ceasefire on energy facilities on both sides of the conflict. 

The Russian side said a “key condition” for any resolution to halt the war was the end of U.S. and European support for Ukraine. 

Bondi on continued deportation flights despite judge’s order: ‘Absolutely’ Trump is above the Law

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5200237-pam-bondi-deportation-flights-venezuela-court-order/?tbref=hp

Attorney General Pam Bondi said the Trump administration would “absolutely” continue to remove Venezuelan immigrants on deportation flights despite a ruling from a federal judge ordering them to pause their efforts. 

“These are foreign terrorists, that the president has identified them, and designated them as such, and we will continue to follow the Alien Enemies Act,” Bondi said Monday on Fox News’s “Jesse Watters Primetime.”

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg on Saturday temporarily blocked President Trump from invoking the Alien Enemies Act, which would grant him the authority to detain and deport individuals of countries deemed foreign adversaries with little due process. 

Bondi ripped Boasberg for attempting “to meddle” in foreign affairs.

“He can’t do it,” she told guest host Jeanine Pirro, adding that “what he’s done is an intrusion on the president’s authority.

“You know, this one federal judge again thinks he can control foreign policy for the entire country, and he cannot,” the attorney general said.

Putin just called Trump’s bluff on Ukraine, with the Russian art of the ‘no’ deal

 https://edition.cnn.com/2025/03/18/europe/analysis-putin-trump-phone-call-ukraine-intl-latam/index.html

This is the painfully predictable lesson the Trump administration’s first real foray into wartime diplomacy with the Kremlin has dealt. They’ve been hopelessly bluffed.

They asked for a 30-day, frontline-wide ceasefire, without conditions. On Tuesday, they got – after a theatrical week-long wait and hundreds more lives lost – a relatively small prisoner swap, hockey matches, more talks, and – per the Kremlin readout – a month-long mutual pause on attacks against “energy infrastructure.”

It is important to emphasize that Trump’s long-heralded call with Russian President Vladimir Putin yielded almost nothing bar the predictable fact that the Kremlin head feels he can outmaneuver his counterpart effortlessly. The swap of 175 prisoners and return of 23 seriously wounded Ukrainians is a minor arrangement, and smacks of something already in the works, given the frequency of similar past swaps and the fact it is due to happen as quickly as Wednesday.

Putin Rejects the Trump Cease-Fire

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-phone-call-russia-ukraine-cease-fire-fb684085?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

President Trump and Vladimir Putin talked on the phone on Tuesday, and neither side is divulging many details of their chat. But strip away the diplomatic pieties and the main result is that Mr. Putin didn’t agree to Mr. Trump’s 30-day cease-fire, while Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelensky did. Have we figured out yet who’s the real obstacle to peace?

“Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace,” the White House readout of the call said. Mr. Putin made minor concessions, including a breather from targeting Ukraine’s energy infrastructure. The White House also claimed progress on deconfliction in the Black Sea. The statement ended with overtures to “potential cooperation” in the Middle East and “an improved bilateral relationship.”

Yet it’s clear the Kremlin is demanding major concessions even for a short-term cease-fire, much less for a broader peace deal. The Russian readout repeated its demand for a “complete cessation of foreign military aid” and intelligence sharing for Ukraine. Mr. Putin also wants Ukraine cut out of the talks and deal only with the President—oh, and sanctions relief.