Mourner : Comforting over phone

Igros Moshe (OC Iv #40.11) Question: Can the mitzva of comforting a mourner be done with a telephone call? Answer The mitzva has two components. 1) Helping the living mourner who is deeply suffering by saying words that comfort him. In order to do that one is obligated to go to the house of the mourner where he is. 2) Helping the deceased as is decribed in Shabbos (152b).  Therefore the Rambam says that the mitzva of comforting mourners takes precedence over visiting the sick since it is providing kindness to  the living and the dead.  It seems to me that the first component can be accomplished with a telephone call while the second component can be done only by going to the house of mourning. Or the place of the deceased. However it is definitely better to comfort the mourner in person which gives honor to the mourner. In conclusion if it is possible he should go in person to the house of the mourner in oder to do the mitzva in the best manner. And not rely on a telephone call.  However if he can’t go for example if he is sick or involved in a different mitzva than he can at least utilize the phone. This is what I wrote concerning visiting the sick . It is permitted for the mourner to speak on the telephone for what he needs and thus there is no problem calling and speaking to him on the telephone. 

Honoring parents – commonsense vs mitzva

Netziv(Approbation to Ahavas Chesed): ….It says in Yevamos (79a): There are three inherent characteristics of the Jewish people – they are merciful, shy and they do acts of kindness to others. … Nevertheless there are explicit commands in the Torah to do acts of kindness such as Vayikra (25:35): You shall support your brother who has become poor, Shemos (22:24): Do not lend money with interest. The reason for this is to teach us that besides being obligated to do acts of kindness because we are human beings we have an addition obligation from the Torah – just as we have for all the mitzvos which we wouldn’t know from commonsense. The consequences of having both an inherent commonsense obligation as being part of mankind as well as an explicit command in the Torah is illustrated by the obligation to honor parents. The Torah command teaches that even though there is a command from commonsense that all of mankind is obligated to keep and receives reward for do it, nevertheless G‑d has in addition explicitly commanded us to do it as an aspect of the Torah (Shemos 20:11)… As a Torah mitzva honoring parents is a statute which must be done simply because it was commanded and not because it makes sense. For example if a non‑Jew fathers a child with a Jewish woman, than according to the Torah that child has a mother but no father. Therefore there is a greater obligation of honoring the mother than the father because the honor of the mother is dictated by not only commonsense but also from the Torah. …There are also consequences for lending money to a needy person. Even though it is clearly a commonsense obligation but it is also governed by Torah law. In this case the obligation from commonsense is inconsistent with the obligation of the Torah. The contradiction occurs in regard to charging interest. For example, in the case of a person whose life depends upon lending money with reasonable interest. From the commonsense point of view he still performs a great mitzva of lending money – even with interest – to sustain another person who desperately needs the loan. However the Torah specifically prohibits charging interest. Therefore according to the Torah a Jew would not be able to lend the money and thus he is prohibited from doing the kindness to the other person as well as sustaining himself. [This was explained in Harchev Davar - Bereishis 48:19 – concerning the Tabernacle at Shiloh…]

Ruach hakodesh is reason Biblical verses are omnisignificant - Netziv

Netziv(Kadmos HaEmek – She’iltos 2:2 -3): When there is some irregularity in the way a Torah verse was written, we find that our Sages often inferred information (derash) both for the subject of the verse and unrelated matters…. And surely this is true for Agada, mussar and ethical lessons – even when there is no obvious connection to the verses. Not only is this true for Torah but also for Biblical verses in Prophets and Writings which were put in writing through prophecy or ruach hakodesh. They are interpreted (drash) both according to the context and not according to the context. According to the context that means when the verse can be understood in a variety of ways. To say that all ways are true is an inherent property of something written with ruach hakodesh. An example of saying that interpretations which are not according to the context are also included in the verse is that of Rabbi Akiva who asks how do we know that a ship is spiritually pure? He answers from Mishlei(30:19),  “The manner of a ship in the midst of the ocean.” He says just as the sea is spiritually pure so is the ship. ...  And similarly we find with the words of Agada concerning the Shunamite woman and Elisha (Berachos 10b) that one who provides hospitality to a talmid chachom in his home is as if he brought a Tamid sacrifice. It  is clear that the Shunamite woman had no thoughts about a Tamid sacrifice when she provided hospitality to Elisha. What was asserted in the gemora is based on the idea that the words of a prophet can be broadly interpreted. This understanding of the Biblical verses is like a hammer striking a rock which sends out sparks both in its place and out of its place – to places where the one striking the rock never imagined they would fall. In a similar manner the verse alludes to many issued and principles even regarding matters which are not related to the verse at all. .

==================================================

To get a greater context of omnisignificance see the following article [fixed link]

Dr. Elman - Rebirth of Omnisignificant Biblical Exegesis

Wife is subordinate to her husband to the degree he is subordinate to G-d - Netziv

Netziv (Bereishis 2:24): Therefore a man should leave… and cleave to his wife. From that time on there is no way to get a help mate as intended by creation and according to how a man feels when he doesn't have a help mate - except by leaving his father and his mother and cleaving to his wife. And then they will be one flesh as he loves her since they are now as one being. As is stated in Yevamos (62b). And if he loves his wife as himself…[he will have domestic tranquility]. But even so she is not totally subordinate as the first woman who was considered to be part of Adam and but rather they will be one flesh. Just as he is concerned with his own good and he wants her to totally fulfill what he wants so it is with her that she wants her own good and that he will totally fulfill what she wants. Nevertheless it has already been established with the first woman and it has become part of the female nature that women remain helpers even though it is not like the original circumstances but rather is is like what happened after eating from the Tree of Knowledge as we will explain in Bereishis (3:2) and it is included in the sixth day of Creation. But it is only someone who merits it will get the love of his wife with total subordination as it was with Eve before the Sin. Because of this there were two manners of the cleaving of Adam and Eve in order that there be in future generations two different ways that a woman would be supportive of her husband. Therefore on the sixth day of Creation there were two ways that Eve loved Adam in order that that there should be two ways that a woman loves a man and as we explained that there are two different manners of serving G-d. All of this was done on the first day that they were created as we explained on verse 4. This created the nature of love of a woman and her life with her husband. This is like what Ben Azai said at the end of Kiddushin [(82a)] , "I was created to serve my Master and they were created to serve me." And to the degree that he serves G-d, will his wife serve him. Or alternatively she will serve him according to his mazel - as all events in the life of man happens according to Divine Providence according to his deeds. And this with either a good mazel or bad. Because this is the say G-d established His Kingdom in the world.

Ezer kenegdo - Netziv

Netziv (Bereishis 02:18.1)Ezer Kenegdo – We discussed the plain meaning. There is a well known medrash that Rashi cites which interprets this phrase to mean if he is deserving she will help him but if not she will be opposed to him. However even according to this medrash the wife as not created  to distress him so how is it possible to understand this phrase as being either a helper or opponent? It means the she should provide helpful opposition. For example if a person is prone to show anger and upset. If his wife supports and encourages him in this, even though at the time of anger he enjoys her agreement and support but later when he calms down he will be upset that his wife added fire and wood to his anger and upset and thus she actually was detrimental(kenegdo). In contrast if she would have opposed him initially and attempted to calm and placate him, even though it appears at that moment as opposition but she is in fact providing him with true help. The same can be said with all his other traits.Thus the meaning of ezer kenegdo is she should provide him with helpful opposition

Not saying until 120

Rav Moshe was opposed to the common statement that a person should live to 120 years. Rav Shurkin notes that Rav Moshe viewed it not as a positive wish but a restrictive negative one.

Scientists Warn: Popular Sugar Substitute Linked to Brain Cell Damage

 https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-warn-popular-sugar-substitute-linked-to-brain-cell-damage/

New research indicates that erythritol, a sugar substitute commonly recommended for individuals with obesity or diabetes, may carry unexpected health risks.

MAGA fury

Tulsi Gabbard calls for Obama to be prosecuted over 2016 election claims

 https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jul/18/tulsi-gabbard-obama-2016-election-russia

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has called for Barack Obama and former senior US national security officials to be prosecuted after accusing them of a “treasonous conspiracy” intended to show that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win was due to Russian interference.

She said Obama and senior officials in his administration had “[laid] the groundwork for … a years-long coup” against Trump after his victory over Hillary Clinton by “manufacturing intelligence” to suggest that Russia had tried to influence the election. That included using a dossier prepared by a British intelligence analyst, Christopher Steele, that they knew to be unreliable, Gabbard claimed.

The attempt to return the spotlight back to the Russia investigation – long derided by Trump as a “hoax” – comes as the US president finds himself in the maelstrom of the lingering scandal over the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on sex-trafficking charges.

Gabbard’s nomination as national intelligence director was one of Trump’s most contentious. It drew criticism because of her lack of previous intelligence experience, having never even served on a congressional committee on the subject, and a track record of supportive comments about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points on the war with Ukraine.

Gabbard claims Obama officials ‘manufactured intelligence’ of 2016 Russian election interference

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5409448-gabbard-alleges-obama-officials-manipulated-intelligence/

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard released a report Friday alleging Obama administration officials manipulated intelligence related to Russian interference in the 2016 election.

The very intelligence agencies that Gabbard now oversees have long concluded that Russia sought to influence the 2016 election — an assessment that was backed by other outside entities.

That includes a three-year bipartisan Senate investigation that concluded in a more than 1,300 page report that Russia was aggressive in seeking to interfere with the election on Trump’s behalf, including by launching a massive social media campaign.

Gabbard’s memo, as well as another 114 pages of related documents, primarily rests on claims there was no indication of a Russian effort to directly manipulate the actual vote count.

However, that is not at odds with the conclusion of the intelligence community or the Senate report, which determined there was “no evidence that any votes were changed or that any voting machines were manipulated.” The Obama administration said it had seen no evidence that hackers tampered with the results.

“It’s a day that ends with ‘y’ and Donald Trump desperately wants to change the subject, so Director Gabbard is rehashing decade-old false claims about the Obama Administration. Few episodes in our nation’s history have been investigated as thoroughly as the Intelligence Community’s warning in 2016 that Russia was interfering in the election,” House Intelligence Committee ranking member Jim Himes (D-Conn.) said in a statement.

Leader Strong or Sensitive?

 The Torah describes how Moshe reacted to being told he would soon die. He thought that meant that Pinchas would be the new leader. But since Pinchas was a zealot he would not be a good leader. G-d reacted to his request to appoint a new leader that he should choose Yehoshua and appoint him publically and also put some of his own power into Yehoshua.  This serves as the basis for a fundamental dispute as to what a true leader should be. Moshe was afraid of an inflexible leader who demanded the same of everyone. The gemora indicates that Yehoshua was merely a reflection of Moshe. This understood as saying Yehoshua related differently to others and in fact was a weak leader as condemned by the Sages of that generation. Others say that the metaphor of the moon was that he didn’t develop his own approach and did not grow greater than what Moshe gave him and this is why he was condemned.  Others say that the new generation needed a weaker leader than Moshe. We see that the idea of a sensitive leader versus a strong harsh one is an old unresolved debate.

Bamidbar (27:15-21) 15. And Moses spoke to the Lord, saying, 16. Let the Lord, the God of the spirits of all flesh, set a man over the congregation, 17. Who may go out before them, and who may go in before them, and who may lead them out, and who may bring them in; that the congregation of the Lord be not as sheep which have no shepherd. 18. And the Lord said to Moses, Take Joshua the son of Nun, a man in whom is spirit, and lay your hand upon him; 19. And set him before Eleazar the priest, and before all the congregation; and give him a charge in their sight. 20. And you shall put some of your honor upon him, that all the congregation of the people of Israel may be obedient. 21. And he shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask counsel for him according to the judgment of Urim before the Lord; at his word shall they go out, and at his word they shall come in, both he, and all the people of Israel with him, all the congregation.

Bava Basra (75a) And thou shalt put of thy honour upon him but not all thy honour. The elders of that generation said: The countenance of Moses was like that of the sun; the countenance of Joshua was like that of the moon. Alas, for such shame! Alas for such reproach!

VP Vance wants WSJ to release the Trump letter to Epstein, which could destroy Trump

Tefillin or Torah fall – fasting

 Igros Moshe (OH III# 3) Question: It is customary to fast when witnessing a sefer Torah or Tefillin falling what is the basis? Answer: You mention that this is stated in Moed Koton (26) If one see a Torah being burnt he needs to do tear his clothing and similarly if he sees tefillin being burnt. However that is referring to tefiilin bezarua  as is stated in the gemora. However it is not clear what bezarua means. The Beis Yosef (YD #340) states that there is no tearing of clothing for a Sefer Torah except if it were burnt by a Jewish king bezarua. The Beis Yosef writes that this indicates that there is no tearing of the clothing unless it was burnt by a Jew and not specifically a king. Bezarua seems to mean that there is deliberate intent for chillul HaShem by destroying something holy and this is stated explicitly by the Meiri and the Eshkol and even if a goy does it. Nevertheless the poskim are discussing burning with the intention of profaning and not a Torah that falls from a person’s hand by accident.  Howewver in a case of a Torah falling from a man’s hand even accidentally it is a disgrace to the holy Torah and similarly for all holy writings and tefillin and therefore one should be very upset about this. Therefore there is the custom to be upset and to fast since this might result in repentance. In conclusion as far as the practical halacha everyone who saw it should fast even if it fell by accident  Even though the person who dropped intentionally is more obligated. Some say that all the members of the synagogue that own the sefer Torah need to fast, however in practice  one can be lenient for those that did not see the fall. The custom is that all that witnessed it even if they don’t belong to the synagogue  should fast.  Even if it slipped from one hand but not completely it is apropriate to fast . However one who wants to be lenient should not be criticized. 

Psak: Choosing vs avoiding error - consequences

Amongst the heated debate that has been going on regarding get me'usa - more subtle issues have been ignored. We addressed the issue of whether we posken like the Rambam (Hilchos Ishus 14:8), that a husband can be forced to give a get in a case of ma'us alei or like Rabbeinu Tam, that force can't be used and if it is used you have a problem of mamzerim. While it is clear that we don't posken like Rambam - there are a number of unclear areas. For example what happens if the husband were forced to give a get and then his wife remarried? If the get was invalid she shouldn't be allowed to remarry and if she does  - the marriage would not be valid and future children would be mamzerim. One of the sources that is cited in this question is the following Rosh.

Rosh(43:6):  Question:  A woman has been married for many year and has children. Now she is saying that he disgusts her (ma’us alei). Do we force the husband to give a get? Answer:  Even though the Rambam writes, When the wife says ma’us alei we force the husband to give her a get – but Rabbeinu Tam and the Ri disagree. Since this is a dispute amongst rabbinic authorities why should we stick our heads amongst the great mountains and to make a forced get which is not required by the halacha and to permit a married woman to remarry? Furthermore due to our sins, Jewish women today have loose morality. Therefore there is concern that the wife might be interested in another man. Whoever forces a husband to give a get when the wife says ma’us alei is simply multiplying mamzerim. All of this is in regard to what to do if asked. However if the get has been forced already – if they relied on the view of the Rambam – what has been done has been done.

Question: What is the Rosh doing here in regards to deciding between the Rambam and Rabbeinu Tam? 

Answer: In fact  he isn't deciding between them and doesn't want to. It seems therefore he is following the assertion found in the introduction to Ohr LeTzion of Rav Bentzion Abba Shaul that psak is a not a clear categorization of what is true and what is false but rather it is a strategy to minimize error and harm. He says only in the case of the Shulchan Aruch because it was accepted by clall Yisroel and the Arizal because he spoke with ruach hakodesh - are their rulings absolute decisions of truth. While it seems clear that the Rosh is doing a cost benefits analysis - other poskim such as Rabbeinu Tam, Ramban Shulchan Aruch etc are clearly rejecting the Rambam and saying that he is wrong!

It would seem that in our time - after the Rambam has been rejected and Rabbeinu Tam accepted - that the ambivalent view of the Rosh would not be relevant. However it is cited by contemporary poskim such as Rav Ovadia Yosef  to explain why the wife can remain married to her second husband - despite receiving an inappropriately forced get from the first.

An explanation might be that contemporary poskim are also doing a cost benefits analysis rather than deciding what is true. Thus they take the conservative approach of Rabbeinu Tam and don't allow the husband to be forced because they are worried about the possibility of mamzerim if Rambam is wrong. They would also say that a wife divorced by a forced get could not get married with that get.

 However if she does get married we have a different problem. There is now a marriage and possibly children. Thus we would definitely have adultery and mamzerim if we had absolutely rejected the Rambam. Therefore we turn around and say - we didn't absolutely reject the Rambam but that he is not the normative lchatchila position.  However when faced with the disaster of adultery and mamzerim we say the Rambam can be relied upon bedieved.

To get back to our problem of using force in ma'us alei. The guiding principle that we seem to be using is that we need to avoid the possibility of an invalid get and thus mamzerim if Rambam is wrong. Therefore all our actions need to be based on the rejection of the Rambam and thus we avoid any appearance of forcing the get. However if there is a forced get  - then bedieved we would rely on the Rambam that there is no problem of aishis ish and mamzerim - because there is no other way.

Assuming that is really the halachic dynamic - what would be the practical status of children resulting from remarriage? If you had a choice between a possible zivug with a person for whom there was never a question of yichus versus one for whom the valid is solely because there was a pesak that bedieved the child is kosher - which would you chose? In other words which would you chose - glatt kosher in which there has never been a sofek or regular kosher which had a number of questions that were resolved by a rabbi's heter that took 10 pages of reasoning to justify and that other rabbis don't accept?

This issue of perceived quality of yichus is also a consideration - at least l'chatchila - in how we conduct ourselves. In other words we should avoid doing anything which raises halachic questions of yichus - unless there are other issues which are more important.

In addition there are contemporary poskim who view the Rambam has rejected totally and they problably would require that the wife not only not remarry after a forced get but that if she did then she could not stay in the marriage and that children from the second marriage would be mamzerim.