Bowser, D.C. attorney general reject push by Bondi to name emergency police commissioner

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/08/14/bondi-police-chief-dc-cole

Mayor Muriel E. Bowser and D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb said the order by Attorney General Pam Bondi was unlawful and suggested they would not comply.

The pushback sets up a major power clash in entirely untested territory as the District clings to its limited home rule — granted under the 1973 Home Rule Act — and the Trump administration seeks to expand its control of law enforcement under the stated premise of a crime emergency, at a time when violent crime is at a 30-year low.

DC mayor and attorney general rebuke Bondi’s order appointing emergency police commissioner

 https://edition.cnn.com/2025/08/14/politics/pam-bondi-dc-sanctuary-city-policies-emergency-police-commissioner

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Thursday evening ordered DC’s mayor and police department to accept Terry Cole, the head of the Drug Enforcement Agency, as the district’s “emergency police commissioner” and give him full control of the department during the federal takeover — quickly drawing rebukes from the district’s mayor and attorney general, who suggested they would not comply.

In the first signs of significant pushback to Trump’s DC police takeover, Bowser quickly rejected the order, writing on social media, “There is no statute that conveys the District’s personnel authority to a federal official.”

Education of girls

 Devarim (6t:7) And you shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise up.

Girl’s  Torah Education co-ed?

Igros Moshe (Y.D. I #137): Question: Is it permitted for young boys and girls to be taught together? Answer Coeducation, for even the youngest children, is surely some­thing that would not please our Sages. While small children experience neither temptation nor lewd thoughts, we must still train them to distance themselves from women. Yet when they study together, they become accustomed to closeness. They will remain accustomed to this when they grow up, as well, when they do face temptation, and the danger of lewd thought. Therefore, although there is no risk of breaking any prohibition now, our educational duty still stands." I am willing to be lenient in an emergency, where an all-girl school cannot be formed, and the alternative is public school." which teaches neither faith nor good deeds. Better that very young children, regarding whom the prohibition does not apply, should be educated in schools founded by the God-fearing, even if boys and girls study together. It is clear and simple that if there is any chance of founding an all-girl school, it must be done. Of course, slightly older children are legally forbidden'" to study either religious or secular subjects in such a school.

Igros Moshe (YD II #104) Question: Is it permitted for young boys and girls to be taught together? Answer  You obviously don’t need me to answer this question but merely to reinforce your view since you say there is a dispute even from some religious Jews who don’t realize that there are concerns. Therefore I am writing that my view is this is prohibited and I have previously ruled that this is from the age of six in some places  However there are those who claim that there is no problem because there is no lust for the opposite sex at this age. Nevertheless there is an obligation of chinuch which means to accustom them to behave now in staying away from the opposite sex because they will need to do it later. However when they learn together as children they become accustomed to be with the opposite sex so that this will continue even when they are older when they will have lust for the opposite sex. So even though there is no problem of prohibited sin now when they are little children but there is a an obligation of chinuch.  There in fact is a dispute about the nature of chinuch whether the behavior needs to be exactly the way it will be when they grow up or only similar. So those who are lenient say that since young children don’t have lust there is not even a mitzva of chinuch. However I hold that it is prohibited to teach boys and girls together even when very young. In America there is a question of what age is considered a child.  Some want to say this means even at the age of 9 or 10 they are still children. While it is clear that even young boys and girls should not be taught together, there are some places that I have agreed that they can be lenient and have coed classes . That is because it is impossible to have a separate school for boys and girls and that would result in the children going to public school. Therefore it is obviously better that they learn in a religious school even if the classes are coed for young children.

Girls learn Mishna

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 03:087): Question: Girls learning Mishna? Answer: Concerning the issue that there are girl’s schools (Beis Yakov) that the staff or principals want to teach them Mishna. Rambam (Talmud Torah 1:13) rules according to Rabbi Eliezar (Sotah 20a) not to teach girls Torah but he distinguishes between the Oral Torah which he says is like teaching them obscenity and the Written Torah which is only problematic l’chatchila. Nevertheless Mishna is Oral Torah and our Sages have commanded us not to teach them and it is like teaching them obscenity. Therefore it is required to withhold this from them. Except for Pirkei Avos which is mussar and good behavior which should be taught to them with clear explanations in order to motivate them in love of Torah and good character.

Maaser time

Igros Moshe (EH IV 26.4 page 55) Concerning the view of Chasam Sofer regarding Rabbi Akiva state that Loving others as yourself is a major principle of the Torah and mitzvos. He says it is specifically said in regard to this world. But we know that Rabbi Akiva also said that your life takes precedence of that of others?. This is truly astounding. It is clear that in regard to Torah learning, his learning takes precedent as is stated in Kiddushin (29b) that it takes priority in relation to one’s son so surely the Torah learning of others. That is how the Rambam rules. There is also a hierarchy for tzedaka. It is obvious that in Torah learning he takes precedent over others much more than in regards to tzedaka. Furthermore regarding tzedaka this is specifically that bread for him comes before that of others. But if he lacks meat while the other lacks bread, he sacrifices his meat so the other can have bread. Similarly he takes precedent if they are poor and he also is to receive meat. However in regards to Torah, it is clear that a person who knows one gemora or even many, his learning of other gemoras still takes priority over other’s learning even that which he already mastered. Also in regards to matters of this world there is no prohibition but rather it is optional if there is no actual danger to life. In contrast regarding Torah, it is prohibited to give the learning of others priority over himself. However I ruled that every Torah scholar, even though he needs it for himself and is a great scholar to devote some time to teach others, even if this if this distracts from his own Torah study. I brought a proof from the gemora about Rav Preida. who taught a student who had great difficulty understanding and required repeating each lesson 400 times. Obviously during that time it would have been more productive for his own learning. He received great reward for this in that he lived 400 years, and also his generation brought the merit to the future world. It would seem that doing this is prohibited since his learning is more important. It is reasonable to explain that this was the giving of a tenth of his time as maaser. Similarly he could add until a fifth. The amount requires additional thought. Regarding mitzvos, if he and the others need to fulfil a mitzva and it is possible for only one person to do the mitzva, obviously if he gives it to the others than he will end up transgressing the mitzva. Consequently I don’t understand the Chasam Sofer and this requires further thought. There is also the problem of two people dying of thirst and one has a bottle of water. Rabbi Akiva does not say that it needs to be given to save the other person or even shared and they both die. We see that Rabbi Akiva does not mean that they are all equal but rather he takes precedent to save himself Maris aiynen chashad

Competition

 Devarim (19:14) You shall not move your neighbor’s landmarks, set up by previous generations, in the property that will be allotted to you in the land that your G-d is giving you to possess.

Competition business – making new minyan

Why are there many halachos against economic competition when at the same time we have the widespread belief that is expressed in the gemora that a person only gets what G-d has decreed?

Yoma (38b): By your name you will be called, to your place you will be restored and from what belongs to you will you be given. No man can touch what is prepared for his fellow and One kingdom does not interfere with the other even to the extent of one hair's breadth.

Bava Basra (21b)  If a resident of an alley sets up a handmill and another resident of the alley wants to set up one next to him, the first has the right to stop him, because he can say to him, ‘You are interfering with my livelihood.’ May we say that this view is supported by the following: ‘Fishing nets must be kept away from the hiding-place of a fish which has been spotted by another fisherman the full length of the fish's swim.’ And how much is this? Rabbah son of R. Huna says: A parasang?’ — Fishes are different, because they look about for food.

Chavos Ya'ir (Teshuva 42) King David praises one who does not enter his fellow's trade.(Sanhedrin  81a)  David considers this trait a sign of piety precisely because it is technically permitted (as long as one is a local resident). David commends one who refrains from competing with his friend for going beyond the letter of the law.

Divrei Hayim (CM 56) The custom of prohibiting the purchase of books from any printer who encroached on the rights of another printer "was based on the words of the geonim who preceded us," and was conditional upon a significant rabbinical figure having agreed to the publication by the first printer. He added that this prohibition had acquired the status of a custom, and was therefore valid even if it was contrary to the laws of the Torah.

Igros Moshe (Choshen Mishpat 1:38) A number of congregants of a particular shul formed a ‘breakaway shul,’ whose popularity soon exceeded that of the original shul. Most of the members of the original shul joined the new shul, denying the Rabbi of the original shul the income he had been making from membership fees. The Rabbi in question had bought the shul property some three years prior, and the breakaway shul had caused him serious financial harm. In spite of the congregants’ claim that the liturgy of the original shul confused them, and that it was hard for them to cope with the Rabbi’s angry outbursts, Rav Moshe rules that the congregants were not allowed to break away from the shul. Citing from the Chasam Sofer and the Aviasaf, he explains that the severity of the prohibition of cutting off somebody’s income cannot be offset by the congregant’s claims. It is important to note that a number of congregants did remain in the original shul, and therefore the income of the Rabbi was not entirely ruined. Nonetheless, Rav Moshe writes that “because the congregation has become so small, so that the income is insufficient for his needs… this is certainly a prohibited case of ruining another’s income.”

Nida (52b) Job blasphemed with the mention of tempest and he was answered with a tempest. He blasphemed with the mention of tempest, saying to Him, Sovereign of the world, perhaps a tempest has passed before Thee, and caused Thee to confuse "Job" with "enemy"? He was answered with a tempest: Then the Lord answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said to him, Most foolish man, I have created many hairs in a man's head and for every hair I have created a separate follicle, so that two should not suck from the same follicle, for if two were to suck from the same follicle they would impair the sight of man.

Rabbi Moshe Sternbuch (Teshuvos Ve-Hanhagos 1:800) It is permitted for somebody to open a rival restaurant next to an already existing restaurant . However, if prices are much lower than those of the rival restaurant, so that the existing restaurant will be unable to compete, it would be forbidden to lower prices, and drive the existing restaurant out of business. The prohibition will not apply when only a number of items are sold at the lower price.

Sanhedrin (81a) What is meant by, neither hath defiled his neighbor's wife, indicating that he did not competitively enter his neighbor’s profession;

Shelah (Shavuos 183:2).: "It is a great principle to report sayings in the name of those who said them, and not to steal sayings from those who said them, for such theft is worse than stealing money… How great, in my eyes, is the sin of a person who cites an interpretation that has been published in a book, or which he has heard, and fails to mention the name of the original maker or writer of the interpretation" 

Sifrei (Devarim 188) "You shall not move back (into his own land, thus broadening your own, the boundary marker of your neighbor." Is it not already written "You shall not rob"? What, then, is the intent of the above? We are hereby taught that one who removes his neighbor's boundary marker transgresses two negative commandments. I might think (that the same holds true) also outside of Eretz Yisrael; it is, therefore, written "in your inheritance that you shall inherit in the land." In Eretz Yisrael one transgresses two negative commandments. Outside of it he transgresses only one.

Tosefta (Nidda 2:7) Marrying a pregnant woman or one nursing another person’s child is prohibited because of  hassagat gevul 

Yerushalmi (Sotah 4:3) A man should not marry a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s child, but if he did marry her, the verse says about him: “Do not remove the eternal boundaries and do not enter the orphans’ field.” He who marries a woman pregnant by another man or nursing another man’s child has to divorce her and should never retake her, the words of Rebbi Meĩr, but the Sages say, he may separate from her and take her back later

Now We Know Who’s Paying the Tariffs

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/now-we-know-whos-paying-the-tariffs-081f461d?mod=hp_opin_pos_1

Producer prices surge, and real wages still aren’t rising fast enough.

President Trump knows the public is skeptical about his tariffs, which is why Administration officials are anxious to convince voters someone somewhere else in the world will pay for them instead of American households. Inflation data released Thursday tell a different story.

The producer-price index (PPI) in July rose 0.9% in the month and 3.3% over the last year. Consumer-price data released Tuesday (0.2% monthly and 2.7% for the last 12 months) implied households weren’t experiencing tariff-induced price increases, except in some services such as medical care. The PPI numbers tell us this is partly because companies are paying higher prices but haven’t passed them on to customers—yet.

Unvaccinated two-year-old dies amid Israel's measles outbreak, Health Ministry encouraging vaccines

 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/article-864114

Israel’s Health Ministry reported the death of a two-year-old boy who contracted measles. The child, unvaccinated, had been hospitalized for several weeks and was connected to an IV.

Since the measles outbreak began in Israel about three months ago, 503 cases have been confirmed, with 187 currently active. Most recent patients are from Jerusalem and Beit Shemesh, and nearly all hospitalized children are unvaccinated.

According to the ministry, 12 children under the age of six currently remain in hospital care, three in intensive care. The Health Ministry urged parents to ensure their children receive routine vaccinations, particularly the measles vaccine, to prevent further severe cases.

Trump’s Doomsday Tariff Letter

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/trumps-doomsday-tariff-letter-e8e38bb1?mod=hp_opin_pos_4

He says judges must bless his ‘emergency’ or we’ll have a depression.

And here you thought the lesson of the Smoot-Hawley tariff era was that a trade war can be destructive. Think again, folks, because President Trump’s lawyers say the courts must uphold the legality of his tariffs or there could be “a 1929-style result.”

That’s the out-of-this-world argument that Solicitor General John Sauer and Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate made this week in a letter to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The judges must give the President unilateral power to impose tariffs on any country at any time, or the end is nigh. Better buy gold and put your cash in a mattress.

Ascending the Temple Mount nowadays

 Temple Mount Akeida 

Bereishis (22:2) And he said, Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love, and go to the land of Moriah (Temple Mount); and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell you.

Ascending the Temple Mount nowadays 

Igros Moshe (OH II:113) Question Why the Tur and the Shulchan Aruch do not mention that it is prohibited to spit today on the Temple mount? Answer: Iit is irrelevant since it is prohibited for those who are impure from the dead  (as everyone today has that status) to go there. In fact, however, there are places on the Temple mount that it is permitted for those impure from the dead to enter even according to Rabbinic prohibition. That is until the Chayel which is before the Soreg.  The Rambam writes that the Soreg encloses and possibly the Chayel encloses as is explained by Tosfos Yom Tov. That would mean it would be permitted from all sides even on the west, for those who are spiritually impure to enter up to the Soreg which is a number of amos wide. I couldn’t find the exact measure.  However according to the Rosh the Soreg is only on the east  from north to south it is possible that the Chayel is only there, if so then on the other sides after 10 amos of the Chayel behind  the Ezras Nashim it would be permitted. Also on the western side it would be permitted for the impure from the dead as well as other impurities since they can go to mikveh. If you are concerned for zivah they can count seven clean days and then tovel in a mikveh and after the sun sets they would be spiritually pure. Even if they didn’t bring a korban, they are allowed in the Ezras Nashim and surely on the rest of the Temple Mount as stated by the Rambam. .In conclusion we find that regarding the prohibition of spitting on the Temple Mount, those places where it is prohibited to spit it is also prohibited for the impure from the dead to enter Perhaps the problem is that it is not so clear which wall. If there is a clear tradition that it is the Western Wall of the Temple Mount or the Wall of the Ezara behind the Kapores then it would definitely be prohibited for the impure from the dead.  It is also possible that it is the lower wall which is prohibited even according to the Rosh.  I seem to recall that Rav Dovid Karliner was uncertain which wall. Perhaps this is the reason that they say about the Brisker Rav that he did not go to the Western Wall because of concerns for spiritual impurity. But I find that astounding! The place that Jews have prayed for many generations, obviously has a tradition from the ancient rabbis that it is permitted to go there – so how can anyone disagree with them?

Artificial insemination

Vayikra (18:20) You shall shall not give your seed to  your neighbor’s wife, to defile yourself with her.

Ibn Ezra (Vayikra 18:20) We know that sexual intercourse is divided into three groups. One, to be fruitful and multiply and not to satisfy lust. Two, to relieve the fullness of the body. Three, for the purpose of lust, which is similar to the lust of an animal.

Artificial insemination from a non-Jewish donor 

Igros Moshe (EH I #10) Question A women who has not given birth after 10 years of marriage and the doctors say the problem is with her husband and she really wants to have a child as all women do. She went to a doctor who inserted the sperm of another man in her uterus without her husband’s permission, is she now prohibited to her husband and what is the status of the resulting child? Answer It is clear that if there was no intercourse  with another man she is not prohibited to her husband. The sperm itself does not make her prohibited. Intercourse prohibits even without sperm. The gemora describes a case that a woman got impregnated from sperm in a bath and says this is not prohibited znus and she is not prohibited to her husband.  The child is not considered a mamzer since there was no intercourse and this is true even if the sperm was from a close relative such as a father or brother.  This is the story of Ben Sira. However if the sperm was from a Jew, then the child can not marry any of the donor’s children but if his identity is not known she child can marry anyone. Nevertheless since most sperm donations come from non-Jews there is no concern with whom the child marries. Even if the doctor claims the donor was Jewish he is not believed. The Maharsham and Emek Halacha are quoted as saying that this is permitted in cases of great need so obviously it is permitted if already done. G-d forbid for the husband to separate from his wife because of this. An additional question is if the child is a girl whether she can marry a cohen? There are authorities that permit it and in actuality she is not disqualified from a cohen.  However if her husband does not want to support the child he exempt as well as paying for the expenses of the birth and other medical expenses since this was not done with his consent. .

Igros Moshe (EH I #71) Question Can the sperm of another man be added to that of the husband as a booster? Answer  This is simply deception to placate the husband that he might be the actual father. In reality it is insignificant since the pregnancy is the result of only one sperm either the husband’s or the other man’s.  However the Yerushalmi disagrees and says two men can be the actual father.  According  to the Yerushalmi the booster actually helps. |In fact it is permitted to do artificial insemination with the sperm of a non-Jew at times of great need when the woman has a great desire for children.  It can be assumed in America that the sperm was donated by a non-Jew.  Ideally she should get her husband’s assent

Igros Moshe. (EH II #11) I received your very long letter, which was full of criticism against me,. concerning my ruling which was published in Igros Moshe about artificial insemination which you believe will cause harm to the purity and holiness of the lineage of the Jewish People. It is also obvious from your letter that you think I will object to your criticism.  The reality is the opposite. I see from your letter only that there are elevated people who are not afraid or embarrassed to give criticism. However the truth is that there is nothing in what I wrote in that ruling, the slightest possibility of destroying the purity and holiness of the Jewish People. It consists entirely of true Torah from the words of our teachers the Rishonim. Consequently your objections simply indicate that you have a different understanding which is based on non Torah sources which dismiss the words of gedolim in their understanding of G-d’s commandments and the holy Torah.  These external views turn prohibitions into permitted acts and that which is permitted becomes  prohibited. They are thus antithetical to Torah and halacha. This is true even for being strict as is know the tzadokim actually wanted to be stricter and consequently there were even rabbinic decrees made to go against these greater restrictions of the tzadokim. I am not Thank G-d  either from them or the masses. All my Jewish outlook is based entirely on my knowledge of Torah without the slightest mixture of external knowledge. My rulings are true  whether for strictness or leniency. I not only am not influenced by non Torah views but I also don’t make up analysis based on emotion or personal bias even to be more strict than the halacha calls for or because I imagine it is a purer and holier path. Now let’s look at the nature of this halacha.  It is unquestionably clear that sexual sins require an act of sexual intercourse and have nothing to do with the sperm . Thus it is irrelevant for the sin whether the intercourse can result in children or not and thus applies to sterile people or whether it is natural or unnatural intercourse or even whether sperm is produced .Since the prohibition is entirely because of the act of intercourse  it is totally unrelated to the insertion of sperm into her body when there is no act of intercourse  no matter whether the sperm is a relative or someone else she with whom she is prohibited to have intercourse. Consequently she does not become prohibited to her husband nor does the resulting child become a mamzer by the insertion of sperm but only by an act of prohibited intercourse. 

Igros Moshe (EH IV #32.5) Question: Artificial Insemination with sperm from husband or  non-Jew? Answer: This that I have stated previously regarding the permissibility of artificial insemination I have no regrets or retractions. However in practice I have not ruled that it should be done since this has nothing to do with the husband’s fulfilment of having children and the wife has no obligation at all to have children and the fact that this might cause the husband to be very jealous. Consequently this is not a good idea to actually do. If someone actually did it than the child is not a mamzer and is permitted to marry even to a cohen.  It is also permitted to use the sperm of the husband even if she is a Niddah if the doctors say that this is the best time.

Annul marriage?- Kiddushei Ta’os

Igros Moshe (E.H.IV #113): Concerning the present matter where the wife has discovered that her husband has had homosexual relations since we find that this is considered a major defect the marriage is a mistake also for the wife as I have explained in Igros Moshe (E.H. 1:79 and 1:180).. It is also reasonable that the fact that the husband is involved in homosexual relations - which are the worst possible abomination and most disgusting thing - it is a disgrace to the whole family. And surely it is extremely degrading to his wife that her husband prefers this disgusting intercourse rather than intercourse with his wife. Thus it is definitely a mistaken marriage. It is clear to us that no woman would be willing to marry such a disgusting, repulsive and debased man as this. Consequently if immediately after she was informed about this she left him - that if it is impossible for her to receive a divorce from him - that she should be permitted to remarry because of having a mistaken marriage. However if it is possible to obtain a divorce, it is necessary to try with all that is possible in order to obtain a kosher get. On the other hand, if he is not fully immersed in homosexuality - but only occasionally because of the influence of his lust - perhaps this should not be considered to be a mistaken marriage. So even though he is a complete rasha (wicked) - even for the sake of a single incident – there are those who mistakenly imagine that this is called a mistaken marriage. However if he is fully immersed in homosexuality - in that he gets more pleasure from homosexual intercourse than from relations with women – it is definitely a mistaken marriage. All of this is if she left him immediately when she found out. But if she remains with him even after being notified, then it is difficult to nullify the marriage. If his behavior is the result of foolishness, since this is something which is unnatural it is definitely a defect. Since it is from foolishness it is likely that there are other manifestations of foolishness. However in essence it is from wickedness and is repulsive - which also makes it a mistaken marriage.

Igros Moshe (E.H.#79) Impotent husband. Concerning a woman who married a man and immediately after the wedding it was clear that he was totally impotent and incapable of having sexual relations at all. It was also clear that  his problem existed prior to getting married since he was not able to have intercourse the night of the wedding. Furthermore there is the testimony of expert doctors who treated him with various medicine that were ineffectual that his condition is incurable and the wife is young and needs to remarry but her husband refused to divorce her and he ran away and it is impossible to obtain a get. The question is whether the marriage can be annulled because if she had known that he was impotent she would never have married him?. This issue has been thoroughly discussed in contemporary and ancient  tshuvos. Some conclude that it is prohibited and some permit it theoretically but not in actuality. Others claim that it is permitted by the Torah but prohibited by the rabbis. However since this is an issue of helping an aguna the matter needs to be investigated despite the fact that I am not worthy in particular to decide between the words of our teachers. G-d should help us to not err in the halacha and we should teach the true actual halacha. It would seem clear and obvious  that if the husband is incapable of intercourse -which is the basis of sexuality and it is the reason why a woman marries and that the Torah describes the absence of intercourse as affliction (Yoma 77). Tosfos (Kesubos 48) indicates that a woman marries in order to have sexual intercourse. Consequently it is clear and obvious that if the man is incapable of sexual intercourse that it is a very great defect in terms of the reason she got married and there is no need to bring proofs to this. But there is also a great proof as we see in the Ein Yitzchok (E.H. 24.6) in citing Tosfos (Yevamos 65) that if the husband is impotent he is required to divorce his wife.  This is also the view of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (154) and also the Beis Yosef cites it in the name of Rashba that we force the impotent husband to divorce her since she got married to have sex. .  Thus we see it is a major deficit. So even if you have a doubt that perhaps there are some women who don’t care if their husband is impotent and therefore we can not force a divorce. But perhaps this last proof shows that we can force a divorce even though we are concerned that even though most women do care about this even though there is a minority that doesn’t care.  However it is more likely that the reason we can force a divorce is because all woman only marry for intercourse. And thus this is a case of mekach ta’us (mistaken transaction)to annul the marriage  The reason that they say to force the divorce and don’t say the marriage is annulled is because their case was of a man who became impotent after they got married. This distinction is important regarding all serious deficits, since there are some woman who prefer marriage under almost any circumstances.  Impotence is not only a major deficit but it is worse than a case such as mucha shechin (skin disease) because sex can not exist at all with it. All the Achronim agree that is a major defect and therefore it can be the basis to annul the marriage if she wasn’t aware of it before she got married and only learned of it after the marriage.  Consequently after much analysis in this case of an impotent husband and it has been determined that he was this way even prior to marriage and it is impossible to obtain a get from him – she should not be an aguna and she should be permitted to remarry because of annulling the marriage (kiddushei ta’os).

WCK confirms Gaza terrorists posed as its aid workers

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/413182

World Central Kitchen confirms IDF statement that Gaza terrorists posed as its aid workers and were eliminated in an Israeli airstrike. WCK condemns the impersonation, warning it endangers civilians and humanitarian staff.

US Debt Reaches $37 Trillion Years Before Expected

 https://www.newsweek.com/us-government-federal-debt-taxes-budget-economy-2112581

The U.S. government's gross national debt has climbed past $37 trillion, a record-breaking milestone that underscores the rapid growth of America's fiscal obligations and the mounting cost pressures on taxpayers.

The Treasury Department confirmed the figure Tuesday in its latest daily financial report.

In January 2020, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that gross federal debt would not surpass $37 trillion until after fiscal year 2030. However, a combination of unprecedented federal borrowing during the COVID-19 pandemic and more recent spending measures has pushed the nation to that threshold far sooner. The pandemic, which began in 2020, prompted both the Trump and Biden administrations to approve trillions in emergency relief to stabilize a shuttered economy and aid recovery.

Marriage Younger Brother before Older?

Igros Moshe (E H II #1) Question: Can the younger brother marry before the older who is bothered by this? Answer It is obvious that there is no reason why the younger brother can’t marry first even against the older brother’s objections since he has an obligation to get married. How is it conceivable that he should not fulfill his obligation because his older brother has not fulfilled his obligation?! While there are sources that seem to permit giving preference to the older marrying first that is only when both are engaged and thus it is solely a question of honor which wedding happens first. The older brother is prohibited to be jealous of the younger brother.