US and Iranian militaries trade shots as Strait of Hormuz tensions escalate

 https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/04/world/live-news/iran-war-hormuz-trump

US military sinks six Iranian boats as Tehran fires on US Navy and commercial ships.

• Strait of Hormuz: The fragile ceasefire between the US and Iran that has held for nearly a month is being tested after both sides fired shots in the Strait of Hormuz. The US military “blew up” six Iranian boats Monday after Tehran launched “multiple cruise missiles, drones and small boats” at American Navy ships and commercial vessels, US Central Command said.

• Clashing accounts: Earlier, US-flagged vessels successfully passed through the strait, the military said, but Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps rejected the statement as “baseless,” according to state media.

The Trump administration ramps up its lawlessness on the seas

 https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/05/04/trump-boat-strikes-increase-after-lull-following-maduro-capture/

It has now become routine for U.S. Southern Command to post grainy videos online of boats being blown up, along with claims that “male narco-terrorists were killed,” even though the administration has not offered any evidence that even one of the people incinerated by U.S. firepower was engaged in drug trafficking, much less in terrorism. The administration is so averse to trying to prove wrongdoing in court that, when suspects survive a strike, they are released rather than arrested. Apparently, there is a secret Justice Department opinion justifying the strikes based on the fanciful premise that drug cartels are waging war on the United States.

But there is also a greater willingness by the U.S. armed forces to engage in illegal conduct. Echoing the view of many legal experts, Brian Finucane, a former State Department legal adviser, told me, “These boat strikes — premeditated killings outside of armed conflict — implicate U.S. criminal laws prohibiting murder on the high seas, conspiracy to commit murder outside the United States, and murder under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.” Even many conservative legal scholars agree that, as John Yoo wrote in The Post in September, the boat strikes “violate American law and the Constitution.”

Another mystery: What exactly is being accomplished by the strikes other than satisfying President Donald Trump’s bloodlust? Trump recently boasted on Truth Social that “98.2% of Drugs coming into the U.S. by Ocean or Sea have STOPPED!” That figure is about as reliable as his claims that prescription drug prices have fallen by more than 100 percent, which is mathematically impossible.

Understanding Lag B'Omer

 https://aish.com/91684314/

The first 33 days of the Omer are observed as a period of mourning. We do not take haircuts, perform weddings, or listen to music. What’s the mourning all about?

Rabbi Akiva, the towering sage of the Mishna, exerted a powerful influence on the Torah scholars of his day, to the point that he had 24,000 disciples. Great as the members of this group was, they had one short-coming: They failed to show proper love and respect for one another. The tragic consequence of this shortcoming was a brief but cataclysmic epidemic that claimed the lives of these students – all 24,000 of them. The period during which the epidemic took place was none other than the first 32 days of the Omer.

The 33rd day of the Omer signified a new period in the life of Rabbi Akiva. The last students of his aborted legacy died, and he established a new venue for his legacy. This consisted of five sages. Their names were Rabbi Meir; Rabbi Yehuda; Rabbi Elazar; Rabbi Nechemiah; and Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. All of these names are familiar to any student of Mishna or Talmud, but the most prominent among them is the sage Rabbi Shimon, about whom we shall learn more. (There is an opinion that Rabbi Shimon later died on the 33rd of the Omer, and we therefore celebrate his memory on that day.)

Significantly, it was Rabbi Shimon, most prominent of Rabbi Akiva’s disciples, who affirmed the immortality of the chain of transmission of the Oral Torah. In a discussion recorded in the Talmud (Shabbat 138b), some sages voiced the opinion that the Torah was destined to be forgotten. Rabbi Shimon said, “God forbid that the Torah shall ever be forgotten!” He buttressed his view with a verse from the Torah, “For it (the Torah) will not be forgotten from the mouth of progeny of the Jews.” (Even today, visitors to Rabbi Shimon’s tomb, nestled among the breathtaking mountains of northern Israel, are greeted by this very verse painted at the entrance to the memorial building.)

If these five new students were able to survive and keep the chain going, there must have been a qualitative difference between them and their fellow disciples of Rabbi Akiva. If the first group failed in their interpersonal relationships, the second were able to rectify that defect. Just as we mourn the dimensions of Torah lost through lack of appreciation for one another, so do we celebrate the reclaimed dimensions that were made possible by devotion to one another.

Maine Senate candidate Platner says tattoo recognized as Nazi symbol has been covered

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/maine-democrat-platner-on-defense-over-tattoo-takes-page-from-trump-playbook-to-keep-up-senate-bid 

His U.S. Senate campaign under fire, Maine Democrat Graham Platner said Wednesday that a tattoo on his chest has been covered to no longer reflect an image widely recognized as a Nazi symbol.

The first-time political candidate said he got the skull and crossbones tattoo in 2007, when he was in his 20s and in the Marine Corps. It happened during a night of drinking while he was on leave in Croatia, he said, adding he was unaware until recently that the image has been associated with Nazi police.

Platner, in an Associated Press interview, said that while his campaign initially said he would remove the tattoo, he chose to cover it up with another tattoo due to the limited options where he lives in rural Maine.

Tattoo artist explains why they covered up Graham Platner's Nazi tattoo

DID the U.S. achieve its goals in Iran?

 https://youtube.com/shorts/McvGUk5hyqA?si=tV6S15pMKAeZIkja

Great Controversy in Israeli Batei Din - The Langer Case

 https://www.koltorah.org/halachah/great-controversy-in-israeli-batei-din-the-langer-case-by-benzion-rotblat-21

When Chava seeked to remarry, the status of her children became known, and they were declared Mamzerim by the Beit Din. This status was upheld until 1966, when Chanoch Langer, then a soldier in the IDF, approached Beit Din to get married. When the Beit Din ruled he was a Mamzer, he brought the case to the Supreme Rabbinical Court of Appeals. He argued that Avraham Borokovsky did not undergo a valid conversion and that he was still a practicing Christian. Borokovky’s rabbi, however, testified he was a regular attendee in Shul on Shabbat, and Borokovsky was able to answer some basic questions about Yahadut while unable to answer some others. After multiple hearings, the high Beit Din, composed of leading Torah authorities Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, Rav Sha'ul Israeli and Rav Ovadiah Yosef concurred that the Langer children were, unfortunately, Mamzerim, based on the fact that Avraham Borokovsky was assumed to have had a Kosher Geirut since he had been witnessed performing Mitzvot. [1]

Upon election, Rav Goren approached his Sephardic counterpart Rav Ovadiah Yosef to join a Beit Din to review the Langer case. Rav Ovadiah, who had sat on the original hearing, refused to hear the case again as he felt the matter had been resolved. As a result, Rav Goren took matters into his own hand, and formed a Beit Din that reversed the ruling of the past Batei Din who had ruled on the case. However, in order to maintain confidentiality, Rav Goren did not disclose the fellow members of his Beit Din. 

Rav Goren later faced severe criticism in light of his ruling. Rav Elyashiv, who had ruled in the original case, left the Rabbinate Beit Din system after Rav Goren’s decision, as he felt that his ruling violated Halachic norms. A group of top tier Rabbanim including Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rav Yechezkel Abramsky, Rav Yaakov Kanievsky, Rav Eliezer Menachem Man Shach and Rav Chaim Shmuelevitz condemned the decision as consisting of “lies and deception” and that the Psak “endangers the survival of the nation.” [7] The Lubavitcher Rebbe also called for Rabbi Goren’s resignation. [8]

Trump denied he made this remark about Iran. He made it on camera one day earlier

 https://edition.cnn.com/2026/05/03/politics/trump-iran-comment-fact-check

On Saturday, President Donald Trump told reporters that he was “looking at” a new Iranian peace proposal. Then a reporter reminded Trump that he had said the previous night that the US might be better off not making a deal with Iran.

In reality, Trump did say — on camera — what the reporter told him he said. His denial was yet another case in which the president wrongly asserted he hadn’t said something he had said in a public forum.

Trump made the remark about Iran during a Friday speech to the Forum Club of the Palm Beaches in South Florida. After mentioning that one of his golf clubs is hosting a PGA Tour tournament, he said: “Yesterday, somebody came up, said, ‘Sir, the tournament is great.’ I said, ‘What tournament are you talking about? I’m so busy with the Iranians calling trying to make a good deal, and we’re not gonna let that happen.’ But … they’ve gotta make a bad deal. But — if they make a deal at all. Because frankly, maybe we’re better off not making a deal at all, do you want to know the truth. Because we can’t let this thing go on.”

Todd Blanche Melts Down Defending Absurd Comey Case

The Physically and Mentally Disabled Insights Based on the Teachings of Rav Moshe Feinstein

 https://www.daat.ac.il/daat/english/halacha/tendler_1.htm

Practical and ethical questions regarding the disabled and their interaction within Jewish society have not received much attention from halachic authorities. Yet, these questions have considerable humane, legal ethical, and financial implications.

Jewish law (halacha) recognizes that some Jews have physical and emotional limitations which prevent them from observing all biblical and rabbinic precepts. Jewish law exempts the disabled for any guilt they might feel because of their inability to perform certain commandments, thus affirming that the basic worth and spirituality of the disabled is not diminished in any way. Halacha urges them to achieve their fullest potential as Jews, while exhorting society to assist them in making their religious observance possible.1

But the resources of Society are not limitless, and the limited resources of the Jewish community are insufficient to permit duplication of facilities to provide universal access to the handicapped and disabled. Recommendations concerning societal obligations to the handicapped must of necessity recognize the limitations. Cooperative efforts involving several communities should be encouraged so that facilities such as schools and mikvehs will be available even if the facility is located at a considerable distance from the handicapped person's home.

The resolution of conflicts between the needs of the individual and the obligations of society is the responsibility of Torah leadership which must mediate the balancing of these two forces. Allocation of charitable funds in Judaism is considered to be the proper role of the local Bet Din.2 Funds needed for the proper care of the disabled may require the attention of a national organization to properly allocate the scarce funds of the Jewish community.

Dementia in Halachah

 https://jewishaction.com/health/dementia-in-halachah/

Compounding the personal difficulty of experiencing diminishing cognitive faculties, people suffering from dementia may also encounter disrespect that others inadvertently display towards them. Our rabbis were aware of this and cautioned us to “be careful to continue to respect an elder who has forgotten their Torah knowledge due to circumstances beyond their control, as it says: the tablets and the broken tablets were placed in the Ark of the Covenant.” This statement refers to compassion that must be shown to one who is experiencing dementia, and in fact it is stated in Menachot 99a in the name of Rav Yosef. What is fascinating is that we know from Eruvin 10a that Rav Yosef himself suffered from dementia and his colleagues would gently remind him of his great teachings in order to cheer him up. Sometimes, those suffering from advanced dementia may seem to be only a shell of their former selves. The rabbis remind us, however, that they are still holy. They are still tzelem Elokim (made in the image of G-d) and deserve to be treated with the utmost respect and dignity.  

Caring for individuals with dementia presents profound halachic, ethical, medical and emotional challenges. Each case requires thoughtful navigation, balancing compassion with halachic principles on a case-by-case basis. The Torah provides guidance and wisdom in these areas, helping us make sensitive and informed decisions in these very challenging situations.  

Deterioration and halacha

 It is a clear halacha that even if a parent or talmid chachom deteriorates he is still to be treated with kavod.

But what if it is a spouse who deveopd mental issues or dementia or diabetes or Parkinson's disease after decades of marriage. Is Divorce advisable?

What if this occurs after a couple became engaged or it is discovered  that there was a serious health condition that they had concealed

In a normal situation where there is something intolerable so we say it is just tough accept this as your burden or get a divorce. Chazal say even if you don't like your wife's cooking it is grounds for divorce

I have only found a discussion regarding the husband taking care of a sick wife and this is because of the kesuba. What about the wife taking care of a senile husband?

"The husband must defray all medical expenses in case of his wife's illness. If she suffers from a disease which may be prolonged for many years, although legally he may pay her the amount fixed in her ketubah and give her a bill of divorce, such action is regarded as inhuman, and he is urged to provide all that is necessary for her cure (Ket. 51a; "Yad," l.c. xiv. 17; "Maggid Mishneh," ad loc.; Eben ha-'Ezer, 79; "Be'er Heṭeb," § 5; comp. "Pitḥe Teshubah" to 78, 1, concerning a case where sickness follows a fault of her own)."

Rambam (Marriage 14:17) When a woman becomes ill, her husband is obligated to provid medical treatment for her until she recovers. If the husband sees that her illness is prolonged, and he will be forced to spend much money treating her, he may tell her: "Here is the money due you by virtue of your ketubah. Either pay for your treatment from this money, or I will divorce you and pay you what is due you and abandon you." Although he is given this prerogative, it is not ethical to act in this manner. [As mentioned by the Maggid Mishneh and the Kessef Mishneh, there are authorities who maintain that there is an explicit prohibition preventing a husband from divorcing a wife who is too ill to care for herself. The later authorities, however, follow the Rambam's view. In the Ashkenazic community, there is a question if the Rambam's ruling applies in the present age, after the ban of Rabbenu Gershom, which prevents divorcing a woman against her will. (See the Chelkat Mechokek 79:3, which quotes an opinion that states that as long as the husband is prepared to meet all the financial obligations of the divorce, he has the prerogative to divorce a woman against her will, even when she is ill.)]

Kesubos (51a) IF SHE SUSTAINED AN INJURY IT IS HIS DUTY TO PROVIDE FOR HER MEDICAL TREATMENT, BUT IF HE SAID, HERE IS HER LETTER OF DIVORCE AND HER KETHUBAH, LET HER HEAL HERSELF’, HE IS ALLOWED [TO ACT IN ACCORDANCE WITH HIS DESIRE].

Shulchan Aruch (EH 79:3) If a woman contracts a lasting disease, he is able to say to her that the  ketuba  can be assumed if she heals herself or the  ketuba  can be absolved and give her the  ketuba , but this is not proper behavior because it is not  derech eretz . 

Tradition - not Talmudic derivation- is source of halachos

Doros Rishonim (4:13): The Rambam’s words which are focused on the general principles of the nature of Tradition and the interpretation of the verses (drashos) indicate that the drashos and the format of the drashos as well as the given and take of the gemora regarding the drashos don’t constitute proof that the halacha under discussion is a Torah halacha. The proof whether a halacha is a Torah halacha can only be determined within the context of the discussion in the gemora. If analysis indicates that it is a Torah law then we conclude that the tradition is that this a Torah law. However if the analysis shows us that this is a rabbinic law then we can not conclude the contrary  from the fact that the gemora is describing it as being learnt from a drasha of Torah verse. That is because the Tradition is foundation of everything. Therefore in this case the drasha and limud is only serving as an asmachta (memory device). Thus the status of a halacha as being from the Torah is not determined by how it is seems to be derived - but rather that is what our Tradition says. Thus if  our Tradition says a halacha is rabbinic – it is rabbinic even though there are many interpretations from Torah verse. The form of apparent deriviation does not add or subtract from the status established by Tradition that it is rabbinic.

Doros Rishonim (Chapter 11): Concerning all the dershos, they are only to provide support for a halacha which is known by Tradition and the derasha is simply to show that there is nothing which is not alluded to by the Torah. They are also used to support a halacha which has been decided from concepts found in the Mishna or from a Tradition transmitted by their teachers or because of logical reasoning based on the concepts of the Torah [but the derasha is not the source of the halacha].

'Weak': DOJ fraud charges against SPLC use an unusual legal theory

 https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/05/02/southern-poverty-law-center-indictment-fraud-case/89732727007/

Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche alleged at an April 21 news conference that the Southern Poverty Law Center, a decades-old Alabama nonprofit dedicated to dismantling white supremacy, defrauded donors by using their money to pay informants within white supremacist groups.

"Paying informants to then dismantle the organization seems like something that people would expect to be one of the tactics that are used, so that seems like a very weak case to me," Amy Markopoulos, a former federal prosecutor who spent years in the DOJ's fraud section, told USA TODAY.

In a statement to USA TODAY, DOJ spokesperson Natalie Baldassarre said the grand jury that indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center on 11 counts only heard a portion of the evidence, and the government remains confident in its case.

Those counts accuse SPLC of seeking donations to "dismantle" violent extremist groups, without telling donors that some of the donations – more than $3 million over nine years – would be used to pay high-level leaders of such groups to be informants.