Mounting pressure from Israel’s allies including the U.S. to wrap up the war in Gaza is confronting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a dilemma: end the conflict and risk the collapse of his government, or plow on and sacrifice international support.
Tuesday, May 20, 2025
Yair Golan sparks outrage: 'A sane country does not kill babies as a hobby'
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-854678
The Democrats Party chairman Yair Golan addressed the war in the Gaza Strip during an interview on Monday with Kan Reshet Bet’s This Morning program, saying: “A sane country does not kill babies for a hobby.”
“Israel is on the path to becoming a pariah state among the nations – like the South Africa of old – if it does not return to behaving like a sane country,” Golan said.
“A sane country does not wage war against civilians, does not kill babies for a hobby, and does not set goals involving the expulsion of populations.”
“These things are simply appalling,” he continued. “It cannot be that we, the Jewish people–who have suffered persecution, pogroms, and genocide throughout our history, and who have served as a moral compass for Jewish and human values–are now taking actions that are simply unconscionable.”
Golan placed direct blame on the government, stating that it is “filled with people who have nothing whatsoever to do with Judaism – Kahanist types, lacking wisdom, morality, and the ability to manage a state during an emergency. This is dangerous to our very existence. That is why it’s time to replace this government as soon as possible, so this war can also come to an end.”
Former prime minister Ehud Barak noted that he believed that Golan's comment was likely directed to the political echelon.
Turkey's Erdogan Has Become One of World's Most Powerful Men—And Trump Ally
https://www.newsweek.com/turkeys-erdogan-has-become-one-worlds-most-powerful-men-trump-ally-2073930
As President Donald Trump seeks to reshape Washington's foreign policy in the Middle East, the U.S. leader has increasingly looked to the head of a longtime ally who has emerged as one of the most influential voices in the region—and beyond.
Trump's approval was even more notable during an April 7 press briefing alongside the head of another top U.S. ally in the Middle East, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has increasingly clashed with Erdogan over the war in Gaza and civil war in Syria.
As the Israeli premier warned of growing Turkish influence in Syria under Sharaa's new government amid ongoing Israeli military operations in the neighboring country, Trump had only warm words for Erdogan.
"Any problem that you have with Turkey, I think I can solve, I mean as long as you're reasonable," Trump told Netanyahu. "You have to be reasonable. We have to be reasonable."
Thus far, the Israeli-Turkish dispute appears to have remained tense, despite recent talks held by the two sides in Azerbaijan. Meanwhile, signs of a rift between Trump and Netanyahu have grown more apparent in recent weeks.
Trump has pursued direct talks with the Palestinian Hamas movement to secure the release of a U.S.-Israeli hostage, struck a ceasefire deal with the Yemeni Ansar Allah movement, also known as the Houthis, that did not include the group's strikes against Israel, and has proceeded with nuclear talks with Iran.
This is "despite some obvious downsides," which Jeffrey noted include lingering questions of Erdogan's commitment to democracy among members of Congress and other influential voices in Washington, as well as opposition from some communities with influence in the U.S., including among Armenian, Greek and Israeli interest groups. Ankara's hedging of its Western alliances by maintaining ties with Moscow could also potentially prove complicating, Jeffrey pointed out.
Trump hinted mockingly at such domestic concerns in April, when the U.S. leader said "the press will get very angry" at his declaration of the mutual affinity between him and Erdogan.
Shavuos VI - Na'aseh v'Nishma - willing or forced acceptance of Torah? - Written vs. Oral Torah
As mentioned in my previous posting Shavuos V there seems to be conflicting views as to whether the Torah was accepted willlingly - na'aseh v'nishma or whether the Jews were threatened with death if they refused to accept it - Sinai was held over their heads. Both statements are found in Shabbos(88a). In fact Prof Auebach asserts that the view that they were forced is a minority opinion which he claims was rejected by the gemora. The gemora there asks that if in fact they were forced then there is no obligation to keep mitzvos! The gemora then replies that while that is true - the Jews did in fact accept the Torah willingly many years later at Purim.
While Prof. Auerbach's explanation seems consistent with Shabbos (88a) it is not the traditional view. There are a number of explanations offered in the classic sources. This post will be limited to the view that it is related to the difference between the Written and Oral Torah. I will present the other views in a future post.
1) The earliest source to address this issue is the Tanchuma (Noach #3) which differentiates between the Written Torah - which was accepted willingly and the Oral Torah - which required force to be accepted.
While Prof. Auerbach's explanation seems consistent with Shabbos (88a) it is not the traditional view. There are a number of explanations offered in the classic sources. This post will be limited to the view that it is related to the difference between the Written and Oral Torah. I will present the other views in a future post.
1) The earliest source to address this issue is the Tanchuma (Noach #3) which differentiates between the Written Torah - which was accepted willingly and the Oral Torah - which required force to be accepted.
Tanchuma( Noach 3): The Jews did not accept the Torah until G‑d forced them by threatening them with the mountain held over their heads as it says (Shemos 19:17): And they were camped under the mountain. R’ Dimi bar Chama said that G‑d told the Jews that if they would accept the Torah then it will be good and if not they would be buried there (Shabbos 88a). However this raises the question. If they were forced to accept the Written Torah then why when they were asked if they wanted to accept the Torah they all answered na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand). We can answer that there is no effort or strain in the Written Torah and it is not very large either. Therefore they readily accepted the Written Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma but they were forced to accept the Oral Torah which has much detail both for the minor mitzvos and the major mitzvos and there is a great quantity as well. The Oral Torah presents great difficulties and no one would study it except someone who strongly loves G‑d with his full heart and with his entire soul and with all his might…
2) The Maharal objects to a literal understanding of this medrash
Maharal (Ohr Chadash): Tanchuma (Noach #3) asks why G‑d had to force the Jews to accept the Torah by holding Sinai over their head when it says in Shemos (24:7) that the Jews willing accepted the Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then understand)? The Tanchuma answers that they only willing accepted the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah because the Oral Torah has many difficult details and therefore they had to be forced to accept the Oral Torah. However this explanation is also problematic in saying that in reality the Jews did not want to accept the Oral Torah. It doesn’t make sense that they did not want the full merit of the Torah whether it was the Oral or Written Torah. It would appear that the explanation is that they did not want to accept the Oral Torah until they were forced. That is because it is appropriate to be forced for the Oral Torah. In contrast the Written Torah which is the beginning of the process of acceptance of the Torah needs to be totally voluntary since the Jews were essential prepared to accept the Torah and thus it wasn’t relevant that they should be forced nor was it necessary. In contrast, the Oral Torah is not such a natural thing to accept as the Written Torah which is the basis to all the Torah. The Jews were inherently ready to accept the Torah and the Written Torah is Torah so the force was only needed for the Oral Torah. However it is not correct to say that the Jews did not want the Oral Torah and that therefore it was necessary to force them and reduce the merit of the Jews. Rather the Tanchuma is say that everything was done in the appropriate manner. The difficulty addressed by the Tanchuma is that it seems that na’aseh v’nishma was the acceptance of both the Written and Oral Torah and therefore there was no need for the forced acceptance. The answer is that na’aseh v’nishma was not in fact said concerning the Oral Torah which is much more difficult. Therefore the acceptance of the Written Torah and Oral Torah was distinct and separate from each other and each one was accepted in the appropriate manner. When you understand the words of our Sages in their full truth you will understand that this explanation which we have given is the essential one and this is clear…
3) However the Ohr HaChaim presents a similar understanding to the medrash - without actually citing it.
Ohr HaChaim (Shemos 19:5): The reason for the repeated verb of listening in this verse perhaps alludes to the acceptance of the two types of Torah. The first being the Written Torah which they received at Sinai and the second being the Oral Torah and the dikdukei sofrim and seforim as well as the legistaltion which would be taught by the rabbis in the future. This is hinted at by the mitzva of lo sassur (Devarim 17:11)…. Furthermore the verse mentions “My voice” after this double expression. This alludes to the principle mentioned in the Bamidbar Rabbah (14): “That which is heard from a sage has the same authority as hearing something from G‑d.” In other words, those decrees of the sages have the same authority as if they had been said by G‑d. Perhaps this insight that they were actually accepting two types of Torah at Sinai can explain a difficulty in understanding Shabbos (88a). This gemora understands the verse Shemos 19:17) to mean that G‑d forced them to accept the Torah by threatening to kill the Jews by holding Mt. Sinai over their heads - unless they accepted the Torah. The obvious problem with this interpretation is that Shemos (24:7) says that they accepted the Torah willingly – naaseh v’nishma (whatever G‑d says we will do and afterwards will learn). In view of their ready acceptance why was it necessary to force them?… It is possible to answer this question with our explanation – that they in fact accepted two types of Torah at Sinai one directly from G‑d at Sinai and a second one that they would receive in the future from the sages. Their willing acceptance described in Shemos (24:7) was the acceptance of what they heard from G‑d even before they knew what it entailed. In contrast the Torah which they would be taught in the future by the sages they refused to accept before they heard what it contained. Their objection to accepting it was that the Torah of the sage is unlimited and in each generation new laws and decrees are generated. Thus G‑d had to force them to accept the Oral Torah while the Written Torah was accepted willingly. This forced state of acceptance continued until the time of Mordechai when they saw the importance of the sage through the actions of Mordechai and Esther. They saw that without their actions there would not be any remnant left of the Jewish people because of their enemies. At that time they also willingly accepted the Torah of the Sage. However it must be acknowledged that our sages (Shabbos 88a) understood the verse differently. They say that it indicates that the Jews willingly accepted the entire Torah willingly even before they knew its contents. Consequently they praised the Jews at Sinai as being like the angels who also accept obligation fully before knowing what it is. However this explanation of the sages is homiletics. According to our explanation they also said they would accept prior to understanding what it entailed – but we insist that was only the Written Torah that they heard directly from G‑d. In fact it might be possible to reconcile these two approaches by saying that these two explanations are describing two different types of Jews. Perhaps our sages are describing the total ready acceptance by the completely righteous Jew. We would then say that the resistance to accepting the Torah of the Sages only occurred amongst the masses. It is obvious that not all the Jews were on the same level of righteousness.
The distinction between the Written and Oral Torah is also found in many other sources. Here are are few more.
Rabbeinu Bachye (Shemos 19:8): All that G‑d said we will do. They agreed to accept upon themselves the yoke of Torah and mitzvos and they did this willingly. However this that our Sages say that Sinai was held over them like a barrel and that they were told that if they accepted the Torah it would be good but if not they would be buried there – it only was in reference to the Oral Torah. That is because the Oral Torah has many prohibitions and punishments as well as additional restrictions. In contrast they Written Torah was willingly accepted by everyone with great interest and joy as well as good heartedly. There was no need to apply force except for the Oral Torah.
Alshech(Bamidbar 21:14): G‑d came to give sight to the blind and to reject the view of the Jews who mistakenly think that the Oral Torah wasn’t necessary but only the Written Torah. In fact this mistaken view was that held by the Jews at Sinai. That is the reason it was necessary for G‑d to hold Sinai over their heads and to tell them if they accepted the Torah it would be good and if not they would die. The Tanchuma (Noach 3) asked that since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand) then why were they forced to accept the Torah under fear of death? And how could it be that there was no genuine acceptance until Purim? The Tanchuma answers that they fully accepted only the Written Torah and not the Oral Torah with its many details
Beis HaLevi(Mishlei 2:1): Shabbos (88a) says that because the Jews were forced to accept the Torah they had an excuse for why they shouldn’t be punished for sins. Nevertheless they fully accepted the Torah in the time of Achashveros… Tosfos (Shabbos 88a) asks why was it necessary to force them since they had already said na’aseh v’nishma (we will do and then we will understand)? The commentaries have already explained the main reason for forcing their acceptance only concerned the Oral Torah. In other words that they should accept doing all that they would be taught by the rabbis in every generation. Thus their original acceptances was only for that which G‑d had already said. They had to be forced to accept that which the rabbis would teach in the future.
Haflaah(Kesubos – Introduction #3): …Because without the Oral Torah we would not know what to do even concerning a single mitzvah… And many commentaries write that the main reason for threatening them with the mountain if they didn’t accept the Torah – only applies to Oral Torah. In fact that is the reason that Korach was swallowed alive in the earth because he rejected Moshe who represented the Oral Torah. Consequently he perverted the foundation principles of Judaism. For example he asked whether a talis which was dyed with techeles required a blue thread in the corner. …
Rav Tzadok(Machshavos Charutz #17): And when prophecy departed - It appears to me that this was the result of the increased power of intellect associated with the Oral Torah after they accepted the Torah a second time during the days of Achashveros because of the love associated with the miracle. They accepted the Torah then strongly and passionately. That was because originally the forced acceptance concerned only the Oral Torah because of the great effort involved in extracting Torah through the intellect and in ascertaining the truth. This understanding is stated in the Tanchuma (Noach #3). However after the events of Purim they willingly accepted the struggle and toil connected with the Oral Torah and by means of this merited the prophecy of intellectual wisdom. This enabled them to know everything by means of the ruach hakodesh which was in their hearts [and therefore they didn’t need the traditional prophecy].
Trump-Putin Call Yields No Breakthrough on Ukraine Cease-Fire
Russian President Vladimir Putin refused to agree to an immediate cease-fire with Ukraine in a two-hour call Monday with President Trump, who said afterward that Moscow and Kyiv would resume direct talks on an agreement to halt the fighting.
Peace in Ukraine looks further away after Trump’s call with Putin
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/05/20/politics/trump-putin-russia-ukraine-ceasefire-talks
So much for Donald Trump’s “force of personality” forcing Russian President Vladimir Putin to prove he wants to end the war in Ukraine.
The president’s hyped-up phone call with his Russian counterpart on Monday mostly served to highlight how far away any such breakthrough may be.
And more importantly, looking ahead, it raised new questions about how involved Trump really wants to be and widened transatlantic divisions on ending the war.
“It feels to me that the president maybe didn’t really try to pressure Putin at all. It’s good that they had a two-hour conversation but coming out of that what do we have?” asked Beth Sanner, a former deputy director of national intelligence.
“We have Putin continuing very maximalist demands … an agreement to talk about a framework for talking about a future peace deal and possibly a ceasefire that would come after agreements for many things,” Sanner told CNN’s Boris Sanchez.
“This is a call that I think it’s really hard to see this in any other way than Putin seemed to get exactly what he wanted.”
Birth Control: in Lithuania?
Igros Moshe (E.H. 1:64): This that you heard from one rav that in Lithuania they permitted all women to use birth control for two years after giving birth – that is false. Because I know many rabbis who are extremely strict about this and I have never heard that there are rabbis who automatically permit birth control to the average woman. That is because the basis of the heter of birth control is only for danger. Therefore it is not relevant to state that such things as birth control are governed by the customs of the locale and city. Rather every rav who is great in Torah and thoroughly familiar with the Talmud and the words of the great rabbis – has full rights to judge according to his understanding in every question that comes before him – based on the facts of that particular case. Consequently it is absolutely not relevant to say that there was a general psak in Lithuania for this matter – and therefore your source testified falsely either on purpose or by mistake.
Punish Student with Bitul Torah
Igros Moshe (YD II #103) Question Punishing students with punishment that interferes with Torah learning?Answer It is certain that this should not be done since it is definitely deleterious while the benefit is doubtful. Therefore you should find other types of punishment.
Ethical behavior precedes Torah
Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky (Emes L’Yaakov Bereishis 14:14): According to the Halacha, Avraham was not obligated to risk his life to save his nephew Lot…. Avraham risked his life because the Patriarchs were yeshorim (upright) [Avoda Zara 25a]. That means that their actions were not governed only by the strict letter of Torah law - but by straight thinking. G d made man inherently yashar (upright). According to uprightness, there was an obligation to try and save Lot… Avraham felt responsible for Lot’s welfare because Lot’s father had died in a furnace because of his belief in the G d of Avraham. Therefore, according to uprightness (menshlikeit) Avraham had to organize his men and pursue after Lot’s captors. In truth the lives of the Patriarchs - which was before the giving of the Torah - was based on the attribute uprightness. This is the meaning of the expression [Vayikra Rabbah 9:3] that derech eretz (civility) preceded the Torah… Therefore, this civility and menshlikeit can be expected even from non Jews. Even though they weren’t given all the mitzvos, but everyone can live in accordance with the inherent uprightness - if he wants.
Esrog lulav beracha in Sukka
Igros Moshe (OC IV #99) Question: Many people say the beracha on the lulav before Amida. Is this correct?Answer I find this custom surprising since it violates the principle that what is done all the time takes precedence (tadir kodem). Perhaps this is done according to the ruling of the Magen Avraham (652:3) who cites the Shela that the beracha should be said in the Sukkah. If a person should wait until after the repetition of the Amida of Shacharis it is a major burden to have to go to the Sukkah from the synagogue in order to say the beracha. So perhaps that consideration pushes aside the principle of tadir. However if this is the reason it it questionable since tadir is an established rule which is learned from a verse. While saying the beracha in the Sukkah is not mentioned in the Mishna or either the Bavli or Yerushalmi . Howevr perhaps since the mitzva of Lulav is the whole day it doesn’t violate the principle of tadir.
Rav Gedalia Schwartz: Status as a married woman canceled without a get - by disqualifying a witness
We have discussed the annulment of a marriage by declaring that it was a mistake - mekach ta'us. We have also mentioned that the Krauss Beis Din annulled a marriage because a witness was disqualified because he wasn't Shomer Shabbos. Rav Gedilia Schwartz also does that. The question is if there are other people at the chasuna who are religious - the marriage would still be valid. In the following letter Rav Schwartz says he annulled the marriage because he has two witnesses that one of the two official witnesses was and is not Shomer Shabbos. However he doesn't say that he has established that there were no frum men at that wedding who also witnessed the marriage. Can it be assumed that he went through the wedding photos and established that there were no frum men there?
Here is the letter declaring that the marriage was invalid and she does not require a Get to marry.
======================Here is a second case - details unknown ===
US to pay $5m to family of 6 January rioter Ashli Babbitt
US to pay $5m to family of 6 January rioter Ashli Babbitt
The Trump administration has agreed to pay a $5m (£3.7m) settlement to the family of Ashli Babbitt, a US Air Force veteran who was shot and killed by a Capitol police officer while breaching the US Congress on 6 January 2021.
n August 2021, a Capitol Police review found that Mr Byrd's decision saved lives and was consistent with police training and procedures. A justice department review also found no evidence of any police wrongdoing.
"This is extremely disappointing and I completely disagree with the Department of Justice's decision," Chief Manger said in a statement to staff after learning of the settlement, the Washington Post reported.
"This settlement sends a chilling message to law enforcement officers across our nation - especially those who have a protective mission like ours," he added.
Trump World Is Slamming the Door on Elon Musk: ‘People Hate Him’
https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-world-is-slamming-the-door-on-elon-musk-people-hate-him/
Republicans—including the president—have stopped talking about the Tesla CEO’s work at the Department of Government Efficiency.
After more than two months of hyping Elon Musk and his work at the Department of Government Efficiency, President Donald Trump and his supporters have gone awfully quiet on the world’s richest man.
While Musk was once a fixture at the White House and featured heavily in the president’s social media posts and fundraising emails, the Tesla CEO has hardly been mentioned since early April, Politico reported.
“He’s finished, done, gone. He polls terrible. People hate him,” an anonymous GOP operative told Politico. “He’d go to Wisconsin thinking he can buy people’s votes, wear the cheese hat, act like a 9-year-old. ... It doesn’t work. It’s offensive to people.”
US says it wants Gaza war to end, but denies threatening Israel if it doesn’t comply
The White House stressed Monday that US President Donald Trump wants the war in Gaza to end, as American officials denied reports that Washington was threatening to “abandon” Israel if it didn’t follow suit.
Trump “has made it very clear he wants to see this conflict in the region end,” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said in response to a question during a briefing about whether Washington supports Netanyahu’s comments from earlier in the day that Israel will take over all of Gaza as it massively expands its military campaign in the Strip.
“The president is moving as quickly as he possibly can and working overtime to end these conflicts in both Israel and Gaza and also the Russia-Ukraine war,” Leavitt added. “The president made it very clear to Hamas that he wanted to see all hostages released.”
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)