Yesurim shel ahava

Igros Moshe (YD 1:140): This that you explained that Suffering from Love (Berachos 5a) - that Rashi explains that G d afflicts a person even though he hasn’t done any sin in order to increase his reward - is similar to the issue of a father hitting his son even though he has completed the his required task. The father does it in order to increase the child’s fear and respect for him . Even though the son would fulfill the father’s command anyway he gets additional reward. This is a valid explanation…. However it is necessary to add that G d does not give Suffering from Love to someone who hasn’t sinned at all. … Nevertheless he is chastised in the same way as the son who has completed his task. This is to increase his reward more than his actual merits…. Nevertheless Rashi’s view is that the suffering serves no purpose for the tzadik except to increase his reward.

Ramban (Shaar HaGemul #3): A person who becomes afflicted with suffering should examine himself for sin. If he hadn’t done a sin which justifies the suffering he should assume that it comes from neglecting a positive commandment. But if he is completely righteous and has not sinned nor neglected positive commandments than the suffering is the result of yesurim shel ahava which are to give him extra reward in the World to Come. The suffering of love comes to purify a person from sins done accidentally and from lack of caution to avoid sins. Thus he has tasted of accidentally sinning and furthermore every improper deed dirties his soul. Even though these accidental sins are not punished in Gehinom, but he still needs to be purified from them to reach the proper level for the World to Come. Therefore G d has mercy on people who have accidentally sinned and allows them to atone by bring sacrifices in the Temple. When there is no Temple He sends suffering to purify the soul for the World to Come…. Thus even suffering of love is also to purify a person from sin.

Sefer HaIkkarim (4:13): … … 4) Sometimes the tzadik experiences bad because it is beneficial for him. This is called Suffering of Love. It is also called a nisayon (test). There are three aspects of Suffering of Love. a) Suffering that erases the slightest remnant of sins that are too minor to be atoned for in a prescribed manner or that he is unaware of what he had done. b) Sometimes there is not the slightest sin but the suffering is entirely to test the tzadik whether he serves G d entirely from love…c) Sometimes there is absolutely no sin and there is no need to test the tzadik but it is entirely to increase the reward in the World to Come - such as Avraham’s sacrifice of Yitzchok.

Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 3:17): The majority of our Sages agree that there is no death or suffering without sin… A person is rewarded according to all the good deeds that he has done even if he wasn’t commanded by the prophet to do them. He is also punished for all the bad things he did, even if he wasn’t forbidden by the prophet. This is true however for those things that his intellect would indicate that they were good or bad.…In the words of our Sages there is something additional which is not found written in the Torah. Some of them talk about yesurim shel ahava which is suffering which occurs even without sin - in order to increase reward. This is also a concept found amongst some Muslims. However there is no verse in the Torah which expresses this idea.

Maharal (Derech Chaim 4:16): It is difficult to understand what our sages meant by saying that “it is not in our hands to understand the suffering of the righteous.” Of course we understand why the righteous suffer because it is known that there is no such thing as a perfect tzadik who has never sinned. Apparently it is referring to the suffering that the righteous get even when it is not the result of sin as is mentioned in Berachos(5a). Even though this is “suffering of love,” nevertheless the sages said that we don’t understand it. In other words there are tzadikim who don’t want this suffering as we find in Berachos(5b) that R’ Yochanon did not want his suffering or the reward for the suffering. From this we see the suffering was difficult for the tzadikim even though they were entirely from G d’s love in order to increase the reward the tzadik would receive in the World to Come. Therefore he said that it is not in our hands to understand either the tranquility of the wicked - because even Moshe did not understand this and we don’t understand the suffering of the righteous… because the tzadikim who rejected “suffering of love”…. The expression “it is not in our hands” - means that we are forced to accept it even if it is not to our good. In other words it is not according to what we want and it is against our will…

Berachos (5a): If a person notices that bad things are happening to him, he should examine his deeds as it says(Eicha 3:40).: Let us search and examine our ways and thereby return to G d. If he examined his deeds yet finds nothing to justify his suffering, he should assume his suffering to neglect of Torah study…. If the assumption is not correct then he should know for a certainty that his suffering is from G d’s love as it says(Mishlei 3:12): Whomever G d loves He chastises.

Rashi (Berachos 5a) Yissurim shel ahava G-d causes suffering in this world even if the person did not sin in order to increase his reward that he will receive in the World to Come which is greater than what he deserves based entirely on merit for good deeds. 

He’s the biggest offender out there’: Trump escalates crackdown on free speech, sues NYT for $15B

Workers Are Getting Fired Over Posts Mocking Charlie Kirk’s Death

 https://www.wsj.com/business/charlie-kirk-death-social-media-post-jobs-0773a8ac?mod=hp_trendingnow_article_pos4

Campaigns to alert employers to contentious posts are posing new challenges for bosses; ‘This is very different’ from past political controversies at work

Workers across the country who’ve mocked Charlie Kirk’s death online have quickly learned their words can get them fired.

From American Airlines to Nasdaq—and in workplaces that include restaurants, schools and law firms—employers have ousted or suspended staff in recent days for gloating, deriding or making otherwise contentious posts about the conservative activist’s killing. Many are getting flagged to the posts by online activists who’ve collected the names of commenters. Some prominent conservatives have joined the call, too.

Pam Bondi Needs a Free Speech Tutorial

 https://www.wsj.com/opinion/pam-bondi-free-speech-hate-speech-charlie-kirk-first-amendment-a4f09203?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

The Attorney General seems to think ‘hate speech’ is illegal. Charlie Kirk knew better.

Is a basic understanding of the First Amendment too much to expect from the nation’s Attorney General? Progressives have spent years trying to create and define a category called “hate speech.” This misunderstanding of the First Amendment seems to have infiltrated the D.C. water supply because AG Pam Bondi repeated it Monday in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination.

Discussing Kirk’s work on college campuses, Ms. Bondi mentioned the “disgusting” antisemitism on display at many universities, and so far so good. But wait. “There’s free speech and then there’s hate speech, and there is no place—especially now, especially after what happened to Charlie, in our society,” the country’s top law enforcer told a podcast. “We will absolutely target you, go after you, if you are targeting anyone with hate speech.”

Making of a Gadol Rav |Kaminetsky's Response to criticism

 

My brother Dovid and his Relationship With Gedolim

 A statement I heard from Rav Diskind, the son in law of Rav Yakov, summarizes my brother very well. He said: ”Our Sages have said that Yiftach in his generation is as Shmuel was in his generation. But woe is it to the person who knew Shmuel.” He obviously wasn’t saying that Yiftach in his time as the head of the Sanhedrin was not to be disrespected since he clearly was not as great as Shmuel. Nor was he saying Yiftach was not as authoritative as Shmuel because he was not as great a Talmid chachom as we see that he sacrificed his daughter. He was saying a more personal point. While we need to respect the contemporary leaders there is no mitzva to be stupid and ignore their short comings. Rav Moshe writes in the Igros Moshe that there are no gedolim today, including himself,  that you can’t disagree with what they say.  My brother Dovid had the opportunity to get to know the views of the previous generation personally and therefore could not accept blindly the deviations of their successors and in fact protested against the deviations. The family found a large collection of letters he received from Rav Moshe Feinstein written in response to his many questions. My brother knew what the previous gedolim thought and why on a wide range of topics. The haskomas he received clear attest that he understood the views of the gedolim of previous generations.  He had heard their responses directly orally or in correspondence. My brother was thus clearly someone who had known Shmuel.

Free speech alarm grows as White House targets rhetoric over Kirk’s killing

 https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5506688-trump-administration-charlie-kirk

The White House is using the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk as a basis to go after left-wing groups and threaten crackdowns on certain types of rhetoric, drawing skepticism from even some on the right.

Vice President Vance on Monday urged the public to report anyone they saw celebrating Kirk’s murder, comments that appeared at odds with his previous criticism of Europe for suppressing free speech.

“The murder of Charlie Kirk was a tragedy. He was on a campus doing what he had done many times before, engaging in debate with students, welcoming them to change his views,” said Aaron Terr, director of public advocacy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression.

“Unfortunately the administration’s response has been disappointing and deeply chilling,” Terr added. “They have not sought to reaffirm the values of free speech, but are instead threatening to undermine them further by cracking down on Americans for what they say about Charlie Kirk or his killing.”

The threats to punish rhetoric and ideologies out of step with the administration’s policies and messaging are part of a broader trend during Trump’s second term.

Pam Bondi vs. the First Amendment

 https://www.thefp.com/p/pam-bondi-vs-the-first-amendment-free-speech-charlie-kirk

At last, something we can all agree on: The attorney general has no idea what she’s talking about.

In an interview that aired on Monday, our attorney general said that the federal government would crack down on “hate speech” in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination last week.

Hate speech is not illegal. It is not even a legal category in the U.S. Yes, we have laws against incitement, defamation, and libel, but nothing so broad and amorphous as “hate speech.” As Kirk himself once put it: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment. Keep America free.”

Don’t use Charlie Kirk’s death to stomp on the freedoms he defended

 https://nypost.com/2025/09/16/opinion/dont-use-charlie-kirks-death-to-stomp-on-the-freedoms-he-defended/

Attorney General Pam Bondi on Tuesday started trying to walk back her embrace of a “hate speech” exception to the First Amendment, as well as an equally foolish “businesses cannot discriminate” stance against private rights of conscience.

This plays right into lefty charges that the right is rushing to suppress legal dissent in the wake of the horrific Charlie Kirk assassination.

Here’s Charlie Kirk, posting in May 2024: “Hate speech does not exist legally in America. There’s ugly speech. There’s gross speech. There’s evil speech. And ALL of it is protected by the First Amendment.”

That nicely sums up the American position going back at least to Thomas Jefferson (though Constitution-haters like Woodrow Wilson saw things differently): We have no “free speech” right if the government pushing words it deems “hateful.”

Hence Bondi’s reversal to arguing only that “speech that crosses the line into threats of violence is NOT protected by the First Amendment” and free speech “does NOT and will NEVER protect violence.” Right, and irrelevant.

Lawrence: Donald Trump doesn't want us to talk about Jeffrey Epstein's emails. So we will

Anonymous posts automatically deleted

Please take the time to give a name other than anonymous to your posts. It just causes confusion. I am returning to reinforcing my policy of automatically rejecting anonymous posts

Condolences and Request for Content Removal

 Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

Please accept my heartfelt condolences on the passing of your dear brother, David, זצ"ל. It was truly an honor to have known him. I had the privilege of referring several couples to him over the years, and I witnessed firsthand his remarkable ability to restore שלום בית in the most extraordinary way. His memory is a blessing.

Upon learning of your loss and reflecting on your brother's legacy, I felt compelled to reach out to you regarding a matter that has weighed on my mind.

Years ago, in connection with your coverage of the Yoel Weiss case, content was published on your platform that included defamatory statements about me that are demonstrably false. This included references to arrests that were subsequently dismissed shortly thereafter, as well as allegations that originated from Moshe Rosenfeld, who has since been convicted in federal court on serious charges and has served his sentence.

In the spirit of justice and truth, and as a זכות for your brother's נשמה, I respectfully request that you remove any defamatory content, including my name and photograph, from your website related to these matters.

I hope you will consider this request favorably as an עילוי נשמה for David זצ"ל.

With sincere condolences and respect,

Rabbi Israel Meir Farkash

Witches consult for sick

Teshuvos Maharshal (#3) Question Is it permitted for a sick person to consult with witches through non Jews? Answer This has already been answered by the Terumas HaDeshen who wrote that asking witches and diviners is not explicitly prohibited. The Torah only prohibited Ov or Yedoni since that is very severe but it doesn’t apply to other type of witches or diviners even as a chumra as can be seen from the gemorah in Yevamos concerning the death penalty for a witch and it doesn’t learn the halacha from Ov and Yedoni. It would seem that the prohibition is solely because of Tamim Teheyu as the Rambam writes. He claims that it appears from his words that there is no actual prohibition. With all due respects I think he misread the Rambam who says elsewhere that it is prohibited to ask a diviner and he receives makos mardus  while the diviner who did an act of divination receives regular makkos. Obviously he holds that both violated a prohibited act. The asker since he didn’t do an act receives Makkos mardus. We learn this from Shaul’s asking the diviner and the gemora says it was a violation of Tamim teheyu. But that is only to believe completely in them and they are called fools. Even so the Ranbam states that only if they follow the advice of the diviner do they receive makkos. I have found that the Ramban claims that only Ov and Yedoni are prohibited to be asked by the Torah and not other types of diviners.  He says asking other types of diviners is prohibited by Tamim teheyu as was the case of Shaul. It would seem that any sick person is not prohibited to consult a diviner according to the Rambam.. The verse of Tamim teheyu is to simply have faith in G-d and have trust in Him engraved in the heart, therefore a sick person need not be strict in the prohibition. However since the basic prohibition is because divination of all types is nonsense and stupidity and lacks a real basis, it should not be permitted at all to consult a diviner because of Tamim teheyu. So if the sick person is in danger it should be permitted even according to the Rambam since the diviner sometimes says things that are true. We say even a doubtful lifesaving permits transgressing Shabbos which would result in capital punishment so surely our case is permitted. However if he is not in danger it is not permitted even if he might lose a limb. Nevertheless there are times to permit it even when there is no danger to life but only to a limb. This is in cases where it is known that the sickness was caused by witchcraft or evil spirit it would be permitted to consult a diviner according to the Rambam. In these matters, most witches or diviners are knowledgeable and can provide genuine help possibly even according to the Rambam. And it is possible to say that the Torah did not prohibit diviners in that case where their only purpose is to drive away the evil spirit. The Torah seems to have only prohibited asking them or to pursue them and to believe in them but the gemora permits nullifying witchcraft with witchcraft and surely through a goy. But all this does not apply to a normal sick person who is not in danger. In fact there is no leniency for him at all.

Perfection and Reality

 Fifty years ago, I as a recently married young man arrived with my beautiful bride in Jerusalem during the week of Sheva Berachos.  We got deluxe accommodations at the home of a relative Dr. Wanderman who also was making Sheva Berchos. Rabbi Bulman who was then Mashgiach at Ohr Someach had consented to come. I had gotten to know Rabbi Bulman when he was the Rav of the Young Israel in Far Rockaway. As an interesting coincidence we had rented our apartment there from the new owner of his former house in Far Rockaway. Everything was perfect. 

Rav Bulman got up to give a drasha. It was the week of Parshas Ki Savo. I still remember to this day the excitement from the guests at seeing the beloved Rav Bulman as many knew him from New York. .  He started out by noting the apparent strangeness of the Parsha discussing the announcement by a Jew that he had perfectly done all the mitzvos and commandments and yet this is described by Chazal as a Confession. He asked why should announcing you did everything correctly be called a confession. The term is usually used only for admission of errors and sins? 

He said this is to teach us an important message. We need to know even when things seem perfect the reality is – even for marriage - is rarely achieved and yet we need to know what the ideal is even if we don’t actually accomplish it but we need to strive for it. 

I found a similar idea in the letters of the Chazon Ish. True moderation is only for those who have strived for and yet have failed to accomplish perfection. Not those who strive directly for moderation

Devarim(26:13-14) You shall declare before your God “I have cleared out the consecrated portion from the house; and I have given it to the family of the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow, just as You commanded me; I have neither transgressed nor neglected any of Your commandments: I have not eaten of it while in mourning, I have not cleared out any of it while I was impure, and I have not deposited any of it with the dead. I have obeyed my God have done just as You commanded me.

Shabbos (25a) It is written in the confession of the Maaser: “I have not eaten thereof in my mourning, neither have I destroyed from it while impure”

Chazon Ish (Letters 3:61): Just as the unvarnished facts and truth are synonymous so are uncompromising perfectionism and greatness. Perfectionism means to develop something to the ultimate degree. One who advocates moderation and despises perfectionism, his lot is with the frauds or with those lacking understanding. Without perfectionism, there can be no completion and if there is no perfection, there is no beginning. The beginning is with constant questions and replies. The perfecter is the brilliant respondent who orders everything in its rightful place. We regularly hear announcements from well known groups that they have nothing to do with uncompromising perfectionists. They nevertheless describe themselves as being the true Jews with appropriate faith to Torah. We simply note, however, that just as there is no such thing amongst lovers of wisdom as love for minimum knowledge and hate for the very wise there is similarly no such thing as loving Torah and mitzvos moderately and hating the uncompromising perfectionists. All the foundations of emuna, the 13 principles and their derivatives, are inherently incompatible with the lightweight wisdom and superficial life that exists in this world. In contrast clear recognition, energetic involvement; high precision in emuna is the hallmark of the perfectionist. Those who proudly testify on themselves that they have not tasted the sweetness of uncompromising perfection are simultaneously testifying that they are missing emuna in the foundation of religion both intellectually and emotionally. Their attachment is only lukewarm. The perfectionists, who despite their genuine wish to have pity on these doctrinaire moderates, do not honor and respect their opponents. The yawning abyss that separates them is naturally only widened as the result of the disputes that occur when they interact with each other. The only true moderation that can exist is that which results naturally to those who love the perfection and strive towards it and educate their children to strive for the peak. In contrast how unfortunate are those “moderates” who cast aspersions on the perfectionists. The obligation of our education is to perfection. The only genuine protection of the educational system is to be contemptuous and to ridicule those who denigrate perfection. However given the burning spirit of youth it is not appropriate to strongly condemn specific individuals amongst the unfortunates. Instead, the youth should be developed to have true love of Torah that requires personal effort and heavenly pleasantness and they should not have obstacles placed on this road. Those schools that are labeled as moderate schools, they are not successful because of the fraud that is inherent in moderation…