Trump's ethical train wreck - Emoluments: Trump's Coming Ethics Trouble

The Atlantic

RICHARD W. PAINTER, LAURENCE H. TRIBE, NORMAN L. EISEN, AND JOSHUA MATZ

The president-elect’s lawyers have explained why they don’t think he’ll violate the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause—but their arguments fall apart under closer scrutiny.

Last week, President-elect Donald Trump’s lawyers issued a brief, largely unnoticed memo defending Trump’s plan to “separate” himself from his businesses. We believe that memo arbitrarily limits itself to a small portion of the conflicts it purports to address, and even there, presents claims that depart from precedent and common sense. Trump can convince a lot of people of a lot of things—but neither he nor his lawyers can explain away the ethics train wreck that will soon crash into the Oval Office.

It’s been widely acknowledged that, when Trump swears the Oath of Office, he will stand in violation of the Constitution’s foreign-emoluments clause. The emoluments clause forbids any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]” from accepting any “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” (unless Congress explicitly consents).

By “emolument,” this provision means any benefit derived from dealing with a foreign government. It is well-settled that receipt of such emoluments is strictly prohibited for persons holding positions of trust with the U.S. government. A U.S. official need not also have an “office” with a foreign government in order to receive an emolument from it.

The Framers included this provision in the Constitution to guarantee that private entanglements with foreign states would not blur the loyalties of federal officials, above all the president. Yet that lesson seems lost on Trump, whose continued significant ownership stake in the Trump Organization forges an unbreakable bond between Trump and a global empire that will benefit or suffer in innumerable ways from its dealings with foreign governments. Trump’s actions in office will thus be haunted by the specter (and perhaps reality) of divided interests.

As we have argued, the only adequate solution to this and other conflicts of interest, taken by presidents of both parties for the past four decades, is divestiture into a truly blind trust or the equivalent.

At last week’s unusual press conference, Trump—lawyer in tow—refused to take those steps. Instead, after marveling at his own generosity, Trump finally explained his big plan: keep an ownership stake in the Trump Organization, but resign from management and have his adult sons (joined by an executive) run the business during his presidency.

Trump’s lawyer then elaborated: The Trump Organization will make no new foreign deals while Trump is president; all new domestic deals will be subject to internal ethics review; Trump will not receive regular updates about the business; and the profits that Trump hotels make from foreign governments will ultimately be donated to the U.S. Treasury.

Several hours later, the law firm Morgan Lewis issued a memo entitled “Conflicts of Interest and the President.” In three short pages, this memo outlined why Trump’s plan purportedly complies with the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

First, it’s worth noting a critical concession in the memo. While somecommentators have taken the extreme view that the emoluments clause doesn’t apply to the president—a claim that doesn’t withstand scrutiny—Trump’s lawyers did not rely on that position. In fact, they squarely rejected it, stating that the president’s “obligations under the Constitution” include “the obligations created by the … Foreign Emoluments Clause.”

From this promising start, however, the memo goes badly awry. It bases its defense of Trump exclusively on the proposition that the president may engage in arms-length, fair-market-value exchanges with foreign powers—on the theory that the phrase “emolument” covers only “payment or other benefit received as a consequence of discharging the duties of an office.”

There are two specific problems with this defense: First, it utterly fails to account for the many other ways in which Trump will still violate the foreign emoluments clause; and second, it is wrong on its merits.

The first problem alone is fatal. Trump has promised not to enter any new foreign deals, and, at the end of each year, to return “profits” from “hotels and similar businesses” to the U.S. Treasury. But this arrangement leaves open a vast universe of ways in which Trump will, by virtue of his continuing ownership interest, foreseeably benefit (or suffer) personally from how foreign nations interact with the Trump Organization. This is the core evil that the foreign emoluments cause sought to address. [...]

In sum, the Morgan Lewis memo—by focusing on hotels and “similar businesses,” and defending only fair-market-value transactions—simply misses a huge part of Trump’s constitutional violation.

But even with respect to this limited set of transactions, the Morgan Lewis memo is lacking.

The fundamental problem is that it loses sight of the purpose of the foreign emoluments clause. As then-Assistant Attorney General Samuel A. Alito, Jr. emphasized in 1986, the “answer to [an] Emoluments Clause question must depend [on] whether the [arrangement] would raise the kind of concern (viz., the potential for ‘corruption and foreign influence’) that motivated the Framers in enacting the constitutional prohibition.”

Given the undisputed purpose and sweeping text of the clause, it makes no sense under any approach to constitutional interpretation to say that an otherwise forbidden foreign payment to the president is allowed, but only if the president is not engaged in the specific duties of his office when he gives that foreign government its money’s worth in services. Imagine if the president owned a company that made billions of dollars annually, all as a result of profitable, fair-market-value transactions with Russia and China. Is it really conceivable that such an arrangement would be constitutional, given the basic purpose of the foreign emoluments clause?

For this reason, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel has, in its well-reasoned opinions, prohibited federal government employees from accepting any sort of payment—fair market value or otherwise—from a foreign government. Trump’s legal team doesn’t distinguish the logic of these opinions; it just asserts that they involve “different factual circumstances.” Of course, that could be said about pretty much any precedent, especially since Trump represents a sui generis conflicts maelstrom.

The underlying concern here is that it is precisely Trump’s beneficial government services that foreign powers may hope to purchase for their money whenever they patronize or advantage his businesses. That is, foreign powers (and their agents) may pay Trump, in his capacity as owner of valuable business assets around the world, so that Trump, in his capacity as president, will play in their interest and push U.S. policies in their direction. It may be impossible to prove this on a case-by-case level, given the complex and often hidden motives guiding presidential conduct, but the whole theory of the foreign emoluments clause is to guard against the very possibility of transactions raising this creeping danger.

Trump’s lawyer, Sheri Dillon, has said that “Trump wants there to be no doubt in the minds of the American public that he is completely isolating himself from his business interests.” But if that were actually true, Trump would have done more—much more—to separate himself from his global business empire. Instead, he adopted the mere shell of a plan, utterly inadequate to the demands of the Constitution.

Trump will thus place himself in clear violation of America’s basic charter from the very first instant of his presidency.

Obama's commutation of 35 year sentence for transgender traitor causes outrage

Fox News

Top Congressional Republicans condemned Tuesday the decision by President Barack Obama to commute former Army intelligence analyst Chelsea Manning’s 35-year prison sentence for leaking classified documents.

House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis., blasted the decision, calling it “outrageous.”

“Chelsea Manning’s treachery put American lives at risk and exposed some of our nation’s most sensitive secrets. President Obama now leaves in place a dangerous precedent that those who compromise our national security won’t be held accountable for their crimes,” Ryan said in a statement.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said the decision was a “grave mistake.”

"It is a sad, yet perhaps fitting commentary on President Obama’s failed national security policies that he would commute the sentence of an individual that endangered the lives of American troops, diplomats, and intelligence sources by leaking hundreds of thousands of sensitive government documents to Wikileaks, a virulently anti-American organization that was a tool of Russia’s recent interference in our elections."

Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla, went on further to echo the statements of Ryan and McCain.

“It is shameful that President Obama is siding with lawbreakers and the ACLU against the men and women who work every day to defend our nation and safeguard U.S. government secrets.”

Senate Majority Whip John Cornyn, R-Texas, told Fox News that while pardons are a Constitutional tool in the president's repertoire, Obama is "undermining our ability on criminal justice reform by granting clemency at an alarming rate."

According to ABC News, Defense Secretary Ash Carter was one of the U.S. officials who were also opposed to the White House’s decision to commute Manning’s sentence.

Manning is more than six years into a 35-year sentence at the military prison at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas for leaking classified government and military documents to the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks. Her sentence is now set to expire May 17.[...]

Maharal - Why a husband can go to Gehinom for listening to wife's advice about the world or spirituality

Maharal (Avos 1:5 ):One who frequently has idle talks with his wife will inherit Gehinom.... The woman is attached to deficit and when he frequently has idle talks with his wife he deviates from his level and heads toward negativity. Therefore he inherits Gehinom because Gehinom is the absence of reality as we have explained. But this is not equivalent to the woman herself who is attached to deficit because we don’t say about her that she is inherently going to Gehinom. In fact her portion is in Gan Eden just as the man. But when the man deviates from his level to increase idle talk with his wife who is attached to deficit relative to the level of man – concerning him it says that in the end he will inherent Gehinom. That is because Gehinom refers to the loss of man and the absence of reality of the man. Gehinom has various names all of which indicate teach that one who goes to Gehinom is one with a definite deficit. And this matter doesn’t require additional discussion,. Consequently that is why it says that in the end he will inherit Genhinom. 

Without any doubt, this is the correct way of understanding the words of our Sages and not like those who explain the words of our Sages as being mere conjecture and guesses. That is because these things which we said are words of wisdom, we explain elsewhere concerning the words of our Sages. Bava Metzia (59a), “Whoever follows the advice of his wife will fall into Gehinom...But people say if your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper? That is not a contradiction because the one that says not to listen to you wife is referring to worldly matters while the other is referring to household matters. Alternatively do not listen to your wife in spiritual matters but it is permitted concerning worldly matters.” Now I will explain with this the words of the Mishna which says that a man who follows the advice of his wife will fall into Gehinom. 

The man who is compared to the Form, if he follows after his wife who is Substance and substance is inherently deficient and he obeys her advice then it is definitely fitting that he should fall into Gehinom. That is because as we explained before – Gehinom is complete deficiency – as the names of Gehinom teach... Therefore since the Form deviates from his proper level to be drawn after Substance he is attaching himself to deficit and falls into Gehinom as the Form is drawn to Substance. 

The question was raised from, People say If your wife is short then bend down and hear her whisper. The answer was given that one should not listen to her for worldly matters only for household matters. The explanation of household matters is that the man is not deviating after his wife when he listens to her in thes matters since the wife is the foundation of the home. And that is the way it has been in the order of the world. And consequently if he follows the advice of his wife in household matters we don’t say that the man is like the Form following after Substance and thus deviating from his spiritual level. That is because in this that the wife is the foundation of the home, from that aspect he is not attaching himself to deficit. In fact the opposite is true since the wife is the basis of the existence of the home and therefore she should be listen to in household matters. However in all other matters in which the wife is not the prime figure, if the man follows after her advice then he will be in fact going after deficit and will fall into Gehinom.

And even according to the alternative answer of listening to worldly matters and not to spiritual matters – he should listen to her in worldly matters because that would not be deviating towards deficit. That is because this world is materialistic which is relevant to the woman who is Substance and therefore for advice in worldly matters he will not fall into Gehinom. In fact the opposite is true – he should follow her advice in worldly matters since that involves material things and that is the wife’s domain. It is only in spiritual matters that he should not listen to her because concerning spritual matters he is the Form and she is only Substance to which is associated the deficit. Consequently if he listens to her in spiritual matters he is deviating after the deficit and he will fall into Gehinom because he is being brought into a deficit and a state of lacking. 

I am writing these things to explain to you that the words of the Mishna are clearly correct and are not mere conjecture.

Furthermore in Berachos (61a), They say that it is better to go behind a lion and not go behind a woman. In other words even though a lion can maul a person, nevertheless one who goes behind a lion is not in as much danger as one who goes behind a woman. That is because the lion is not deficit as is a woman. Because going after a woman is the Form following the Substance which causes completely loss to the Form when he deviates to follow after Substance. There is no question that it is worse for him then what the lion can do to him. Because even if the lion harms him, the lion’s main concern is to maul to eat and is nothing personal. But the deficit which is attached to Subtance - that involves his essence. Thus a lion will sometimes damage and sometimes not as is in all cases of accident which is not the case of following after a woman. I will offer addition explanations of this with G-d’s help.

One big happy family: Philly Kollel is proud to be associated with R S. Kaminetsky and also published an ad from the adulterous couple he created and supports

The Back Story on Trump and Vaccines

Donald Trump Picks Fight with Civil Rights Legend John Lewis on MLK Weekend

Daily Beast    President-elect Donald Trump would start a fight in an empty broom closet. As a candidate in the Republican primary and then later in a hard fought campaign against Hillary Clinton, the former real estate developer exuded precious little grace—preferring brickbats to olive branches. Without question, Trump is far less prone to rise above the bar of decency than he is to slither beneath it.

In a mere six days he will rest his briefcase in the Oval Office, where he will face a myriad of critical issues— both foreign and domestic. However, if his latest skirmish on social media is any indication, Trump will step onto the world stage and come face-to-face with his most formidable foe: himself.

His latest outburst—an attack on Congressman John Lewis just before the nation celebrates Martin Luther King Day-- drew consternation from both sides of the aisle and social media erupted with indignation. That’s because Lewis was not only a King foot soldier. He was president of the Student Nonviolent Coordination Committee (SNCC) and is the youngest and only living member of “The Big Six.” Lewis was one of the original 13 Freedom Riders, young people who risked their lives to challenge racial segregation in the South. He was arrested 45 times, beaten and bloodied in the name of human rights.

After one of the most divisive national contests this country has endured and with looming suspicions of Russian intervention, Lewis declared that he would not attend the upcoming inauguration. In an interview with NBC’s Chuck Todd, Lewis—clearly angered by intelligence briefings—said he did not see the former reality show personality as a “legitimate president.”

That, of course, did not sit well with Trump.

He might have responded with some modicum of grace, urging the country to come together in perilous times. He might have thanked the venerated civil rights icon for his service, affirmed his own commitment to human rights and welcomed Lewis to meet with him to discuss the issues. I mean, if he has time for Ray Lewis, Steve Harvey and Kanye West, surely there is room on the calendar for someone who is steeped in public policy and who possesses decades of experience both building and crossing bridges.

Instead, Trump hit back in a pair of outlandish tweets, he saying, “Congressman John Lewis should spend more time on fixing and helping his district, which is in horrible shape and falling apart (not to mention crime infested) rather than falsely complaining about the election results.”

“All talk, talk, talk — no action or results,” Trump concluded. “Sad!”

That Trump would respond in such a feckless and disconnected manner should surprise no one. That he appears to have a nascent understanding on our nation’s history—and Lewis’s critical role— should not raise an eyebrow. With skin as thin as unsweetened tea, surrounding himself with sycophants who dare not question him, it is abundantly clear that he has spent no time thinking about who Lewis is and even less time in Atlanta.

Lewis’s “results” are a proliferation of human rights, as well as increased economic and political opportunity. He was on the right side of history when it came to LGBT and reproductive rights, among other issues. In 1994, when the country was caught up in hysteria and pushed a crime bill that later destroyed whole communities, John Lewis was one of only eleven black members of the House to stand against it.

One can argue about the validity of a “dossier” strewn with behavior unbefitting the Oval Office, but there can be no dispute about the “good trouble” Lewis has gotten himself into over the course of his adult life. One of the “results” of his activism was the Fair Housing Act, the very legislation under which the Justice Department sued Donald Trump and his father.

While Trump was getting repeated military deferments for his sore feet, Lewis’s feet were on the avenues, highways and byways attempting to fashion a more inclusive society.

Let's be clear: Georgia’s 5th Congressional district is thriving. Comprised by a large swath of the city and cutting through two counties, it is home to the Georgia governor’s mansion, Spelman and Morehouse Colleges, Georgia Tech, the Buckhead business and entertainment district, and the world’s most travelled airport—Hartsfield Jackson International. Home to Fortune 500 companies, the district is both racially and economically diverse.

Migration to Atlanta from other regions of the country over last three decades tells a story of growing, comparatively broad based prosperity.

Like every other big city in America, public safety is a priority for local leaders. However, Atlanta is certainly not “infested” with crime. And nothing about my city says it is “falling apart.” In fact, just as the city seal implies, Atlanta has been rising from the ashes since General Sherman burned down the west end.[...]

The truth is Donald Trump is a lot like Bull Connor, only with much more bull. Connor, the Birmingham public service commissioner Lewis and others took on as Freedom Riders, at least understood the math. Trump is walking into the White House based on a 70,000 vote margin across three states. That’s no mandate. That’s a fluke.

Rav Herschel Schachter - A posek can give binding pesak concerning whom you must marry

Seforim Blog by Dr. Marc Shapiro

Among other interesting comments in R. Schachter's shiur  [“Da’as Torah – What are Its Parameters in non-Halachic Issues”], is that he states that a posek can give you a binding pesak concerning whom you must marry.[3] This too I find difficult, since where does a posek get the authority to tell someone whom he must marry? An individual can certainly consult with a posek for his advice in this matter, but since this consultation is done voluntarily by the potential groom, how do we go from there to a situation of pesak which binds the person asking the question? 

[Subsequent to writing these words I saw R. Schachter and asked him about this matter. He reaffirmed his position, stating that whom one marries is a halakhic matter and therefore a posek can indeed tell you whom you must marry. He added that this is almost always theoretical since in order to make such a ruling the posek would need to know both the bride and groom for many years so as to be sure that what he is saying is correct. But he also insisted that if the posek does have the requisite knowledge he can indeed give a binding pesak about whom one must marry.] 

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

3] At 1:14:30. The Lubavitcher Rebbe had a different perspective. See Joseph Telushkin, Rebbe: The Life and Teachings of Menachem M. Schneerson, the Most Influential Rabbi in Modern History (New York, 2014), p. 189, who quotes what the Rebbe told R. Leibel Groner: "When it comes to a marriage, not I can help you, not your father can help you, not your mother can help you, not your seichel [your intellectual faculties] can help you. The only thing that can help you is your heart. If you feel for her, go ahead. If you don't do not."

German court rules that Muslims firebombing synagogue is not anti-Semitic but justified protest against Israel

Jerusalem Post   A German regional court in the city of Wuppertal affirmed a lower court decision last Friday stating that a violent attempt to burn the city's synagogue by three men in 2014 was a justified expression of criticism of Israel’s policies.

Three German Palestinians sought to torch the Wuppertal synagogue with Molotov cocktails in July, 2014. The local Wuppertal court panel said in its 2015 decision that the three men wanted to draw “attention to the Gaza conflict” with Israel. The court deemed the attack not to be motivated by antisemitism.

Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the summer of 2014 to stop Hamas rocket attacks into Israeli territory.

The court sentenced the three men – the 31-year-old Mohamad E., the 26 year-old Ismail A. and the 20-year-old Mohammad A.—to suspended sentences. The men tossed self-made Molotov cocktails at the synagogue. German courts frequently decline to release the last names of criminals to protect privacy.

The attack caused €800 damage to the synagogue. The original synagogue in Wuppertal was burned by Germans during the Kristallnacht pogroms in 1938. Wuppertal has a population of nearly 344,000 and is located in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia.[...]

After the local Wuppertal court decision in 2015, Volker Beck, a leading Green Party MP, said the “attack on the synagogue was motivated by antisemitism” and blasted the court for issuing a decision stating that the goal of the attack was to highlight the war in Gaza.[...]

Hatzalah: Terror attack with truck which killed four soldiers in Jerusalem

Supreme Court rules in favor of Women of the Wall

Arutz 7

The Supreme Court issued a challenge to Israel’s status quo on religion and state, ordering administrators of the Western Wall to justify the ban on women from leading prayers at the holy site, as sought in a petition.

In accordance with Jewish tradition and historical precedent, there are separate prayer sections for women and men at the Western Wall.

As per tradition at the Wall, and in accordance with the custom of most worshippers at the holy site, women are not permitted to lead group prayers or read from Torah scrolls. A small group of left-wing activists, however, have been campaigning for the religious status quo at the Western Wall to be altered.

The Israeli Supreme Court's decision on the side of the activists who submitted the petition demanding the changes was issued on Wednesday.

The petition came after a dramatic but controversial agreement was reached last year to create a third space for alternative prayer groups at a part of the Western Wall not bordered by the Kotel plaza and which would be open to both women and men. It is located near historic Robinson's Arch, the remnant of a bridge that was used to enter the Temple Mount area in 2nd Temple times.

The Women of the Wall organization, which for years has agitated for an end to the status quo at the Wall, accepted the agreement.

Maharal - woman was created before man because she is less important

Maharal (Vayikra 12:2):... in fact the woman was created before the man because even though regarding the taking of one of Adam’s ribs (Bereishis 2:21) this was done after the creation of man – but the actual creation of Eve was prior to this. Because it says in Bereishis (5:2), Male and female they were created and He called their name Adam. That shows that prior to the taking of Adam’s rib a female was created as one of the two faces of Adam (Bereishis Rabba 8:1) and the creation of the female was first. That is because the order of creation was first the animal and then the woman and afterwards the male was created. You see that in creation it is always that which is most important is created last. So also here, the male was created last because he is most important. Because of this reason our Sages (Nida 45b) say that the woman matures faster then the man because as the age of adulthood for a girl is 12 years and one day while for a male it is 13 years and one day. This is an example that which is more complete finishes completion later. Therefore the forming of the male was at the end and not the beginning.

Maharal - Women have binah yeseira - they have extra primordial intellect as opposed to the abstract intellect of man

The Maharal is often cited as a rabbinic authority that recognizes the equality or even superiority of woman over man. It is important to understand what his views actually are. Here is an example of the Maharal's understanding of gender differences regarding "binah yeseira" (extra understanding) - which is often cited to indicate that woman has superior intellectual powers.

However it is clear that the Maharal does not understand it that way. He comments are similar to those found in the Ibn Ezra and Ralbag as well as the Rambam and other Rishonim - that there is a coarser more primitive nature to women's intelligence and it is primarily useful in dealing with material rather than spiritual issues. There is a problem in that bina yeseira does not just mean practical or mundane wisdom

Peskita Zutrasa[1](Lekach Tov Devarim Zos Habracha):Yehoshua ben Nun – Why was was his name ben Nun? Because he had bina yeseira and similar we see in Bamidbar (34), Because Moshe placed his hands on him. G-d had only said to Moshe to place one hand on him and yet he placed both hands. From here we learn that a teacher is not jealous of his students....

Malbim(Divrei HaYomim 2:26.5):  
מלבי"ם דברי הימים ב כו

(ה) ויהי לדרוש אלהים. שר"ל שהיה אז העת המוכן לדרוש אלהים, כי היה בימי זכריה המבין בראות אלהים, שהנביאים ובעלי רוה"ק היו צופים במראות אלהים כמו יחזקאל שראה המרכבה, ויתר מחזות שראו הנביאים. והיה ביניהם מדרגות, שיש מהם שלא הבינו כל המראה על אמתתה, כי המראות הם ציונים מושכלים שעל ידם יציינו להם ההשגות הנוראות, כמו העולמות וההיכלות והפרצופים והספירות שרואים הנכנסים בפרדס, שיש מהם שהציץ ונפגע, ומעשה בתינוק שיצא אש מחשמל, כי צריך בינה יתירה להבין דבר מתוך דבר כר"ע שנכנס בשלום ויצא בשלום, וזכריה היה מבין המראות, ובדור שנמצא איש כזה היה העת לדרוש אלהים ממנו, ובימים שדרשו את ה' הצליחו. עתה יתחיל לספר הצלחותיו, א] נגד האויב החיצון:

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

Maharal[1](Nida 45b): This teaches that G-d gave bina yeseira (extra understanding) to the woman The explanation is G-d gave primordial (hayulani) intelligence to the woman because she is extra prepared for this. However the man has intelligence (seichel) and wisdom (chochma) in extra measure which is abstract intelligence. Primordial intelligences enables the woman to accept more. And thus our Sages say (Bava Metzia 59a), If your wife is short bend down and listen to her. According to one view this is referring to household matters while according to another view it is talking about worldly matters. That is because the woman’s intelligence comes from primordial intelligence which is more relevant to her than the man. Consequently regarding heavenly matters one should not listen to the advice of his wife because a woman has no connection to wisdom which requires abstract intelligence. It is important to understand clearly what our Sages hint at when they say woman was given extra binah (understanding). This is based on the language “vayiven” (build) where G-d builds  woman from the side of man. That is because the woman completes the building of man and from this aspect she has wisdom because completion produces this. Nevertheless the level of man is that he has abstract intelligence. It is important to understand this.

---

[1] מהר"ל (נדה מה:): מלמד שנתן בינה יתירה באשה וכו'. פי' דבר זה כי השכל היולאני נתן הש"י לאשה מצד שהאשה היא מוכנת לזה ביותר, כי האיש יש לו שכל וחכמה ביותר הוא השכל הנבדל, אבל שכל היולאני מוכנת האשה לקבל ביותר, וכך אמרו בפרק הזהב (בבא מציא נט.) אתתך גוצא גחון ותלחש לה, ומוקי ליה לחד לישנא במילי דביתא ולחד לישנא במילי דעלמא, והיינו כי האשה חכמה שלה מצד שכל היולאני שייך לה יותר מן האיש. ולכך אמרו שם במילי דשמיא אל ילך אחר עצת [אשתו] כי אין האשה שייך לה חכמה כי חכמה זאת אינ' רק מכח שכל הנבדל. אמנם כי יש לך להבין מאוד את שרמזו חכמים בזה שאמרו שנתן באשה בינה יתירה, ודבר זה נרמז בלשון ויבן, כי היא משלמת הבנין אל האיש, ומצד הזה שייך לה חכמה, כי ההשלמה ראוי לזה, ומ"מ מדריגת האיש שיש לו שכל הנבדל והבן זה.

Here’s a guide to the Trumpian spin on the Russian hacking report

Washington Post

President-elect Donald Trump and his aides have offered all sorts of reasons for dismissing or minimizing the “high-confidence” assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered a cyberattack during the 2016 presidential election with the aim of undermining faith in the U.S. democratic process and hurting Hillary Clinton’s electability.

Here’s a guide to the talking points, drawn from statements made by incoming White House chief of staff Reince Preibus on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Jan. 8.

“Read the report itself. There is no evidence that Russia succeeded in any alleged attempt to disrupt our democracy or, in fact, to influence the election results.”

This echoes a claim that Trump made in a statement after the report was released – that “there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.”

Follow

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump

Intelligence stated very strongly there was absolutely no evidence that hacking affected the election results. Voting machines not touched!

1:56 PM - 7 Jan 2017

18,570 18,570 Retweets 68,918 68,918 likes

But this is clever sleight of hand designed to obscure the point of the report.

The intelligence report provided an accounting of Russian behavior during the election; the intelligence agencies were not tasked to assess whether Russian actions swayed the election. The report makes this clear:

“We did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had on the outcomes of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities, and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political processes or US public opinion.”

Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr. emphasized this when he testified before Congress on Jan. 5: Political analysis “certainly isn’t the purview of the U.S. intelligence community,” he said.

In other words, Trump officials are asserting a conclusion that does not exist in the report — because agencies were not asked to make such a conclusion. Because the report is silent on the question of whether the election was swayed, Trump officials falsely state there is “no evidence” that the Russian efforts succeeded.

Given Trump’s narrow election victory — just a switch of 40,000 votes in three states would have altered the outcome — analysts can point to any number of factors. Clinton’s email controversy — and the FBI investigation that resulted – was certainly a major drag on her electoral prospects. But at the same time, during the campaign Trump repeatedly seized on revelations made by WikiLeaks (which U.S. intelligence says came via Russia) to attack Clinton.

The answer will never be known, but it is not a question that U.S. intelligence was asked to explore.

“One of the two biggest political parties in the world, the DNC, that sat there like a sitting duck, allowed these entities into their computer systems.”

This is an example of attacking one of the victims, the Democratic National Committee. But it ignores the broader implications of the intelligence report — how the Russian government used Internet trolls and RT (Russia’s state-owned international news channel) to amplify negative reports on Clinton and U.S. democracy.

The Internet trolls started to advocate for Trump as early as December 2015, well before the WikiLeaks revelations began to be released on the eve of the Democratic National Convention.

Meanwhile, “RT’s coverage of Secretary Clinton throughout the presidential campaign was consistently negative and focused on her leaked e-mails and accused her of corruption, poor physical and mental health, and ties to Islamic extremism,” the report said. (It does not mention that these attack lines mirrored attacks made by the Trump campaign.)

“By their own admission, they said that they lacked the training, and that they didn’t respond to the FBI when they called.”

Again, Preibus pins the blame on the DNC. But there was a miscommunication between the DNC and the FBI.[...]

Finally, Trump officials like to point to President Obama’s actions — or inactions — after officials accused China of accessing the Office of Personnel Management and obtaining information on 22 million Americans. They argue that because Obama sanctioned Russia, but not China, he’s trying to score political points and undercut Trump’s victory.

They may have a point, but the two situations are not directly comparable. The Russian campaign, as described by U.S. intelligence, involved more than just hacking, with the aim of disrupting and possibly influencing the political process. The Chinese hack had a more isolated goal — espionage. China appears to have wanted the material in order to engage in possible blackmail.

U.S. officials also say that China responded to U.S. pressure after the hack was discovered, and there are signs its espionage activities have been reduced. Timing is often important in diplomacy: China may have been receptive to U.S. pressure at the time because President Xi Jinping was about to visit the United States, and he did not want the hack to mar the visit. China even announced it had arrested the alleged hackers. (Obama had signed an executive order that could have been used to issue sanctions against China for the attack.)

In any case, Obama administration officials say the China case is different because it was purely a case of spying — something the United States does as well.

“We did not retaliate against an act of espionage any more than other countries necessarily retaliate against us for when we conduct espionage,” Clapper told lawmakers. “People who live in glass houses need to think about throwing rocks. Because this was an act of espionage and, you know, we and other nations conduct similar acts of espionage. So if we’re going to punish each other for acts of espionage, that’s a different policy issue.”

When the United States exposed a Russian spy ring in 2010, discovering agents who had embedded themselves in U.S. society, the spies were arrested and eventually became part of a spy swap between the two countries. No sanctions were imposed – though that was also during the period when Obama was trying to “reset” relations with Russia.

Trump alleges leaks by U.S. spy agencies, says that's something 'Nazi Germany would have done'

LA Times  [see Godwin's Law]

President-elect Donald Trump amplified his already heated war with the intelligence community Wednesday, accusing agents of disseminating an ugly and unsubstantiated report about him, and comparing the leak to Nazi tactics.

The showdown threatens to further undermine trust between the next commander in chief and America’s spies amid heightened threats to national security from terrorist groups and adversaries around the world with powerful new cyberweapons.

Trump, for the first time, acknowledged intelligence findings that Russia hacked Democratic files in an effort to interfere with the election, but he denied that Moscow tried to help him win, and he praised President Vladimir Putin, even suggesting that the hack ultimately helped American voters.

“Hacking's bad and it shouldn't be done,” he told reporters. “But look at the things that were hacked, look at what was learned from that hacking.”

The claim was one of several bizarre moments at a wide-ranging news conference, Trump’s first since July, that also touched on his business conflicts, his biggest campaign promises and another of his main foils, the media.

The event went off with a typical level of theatrics: Trump stood in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York next to stacks of file folders, ostensibly containing documents detailing the handover of his businesses to his older sons, though they were acknowledged only as an afterthought. Several other speakers took turns at the lectern, including a tax lawyer, a spokesman and Vice President-elect Mike Pence. Trump briefly argued with a CNN correspondent, refusing to take his question.

Trump was asked to rule out the possibility of contacts between his associates and Russian intelligence agents during the campaign and would not do so. But he lashed out against media organizations that published unverified allegations Tuesday from a report that claimed that Russians had gathered blackmail material against him and that people in his orbit had met with Russian agents during the campaign. [...]

“It was disgraceful — disgraceful that the intelligence agencies allowed any information that turned out to be so false and fake out,” Trump said. “That's something that Nazi Germany would have done and did do.”

Intelligence officials and their allies have stewed over Trump’s broadsides and were angered by his latest declarations of distrust.

“Kill the messenger and divert attention: That is the only trick Donald Trump has, and he does it viciously,” said Glenn Carle, a former senior CIA officer who spent more than two decades as a spy. “… The relationship is essentially damaged beyond the possibility of repair before it has even begun.”

Trump continued to dismiss criticism of Russia, much of it waged by members of his own party, over the hacking of Democrats. He noted that China also has breached U.S. government systems and insisted it is not getting the attention it deserves, one of several instances when he was asked about Russia and invoked China instead in his answer.[...]

“If Putin likes Donald Trump, guess what, folks? That's called an asset, not a liability,” Trump said.[...]

Trump spoke positively of improving relations with Russia during his presidency, praising Putin and saying Moscow “can help us fight [Islamic State], which, by the way, is, No. 1, tricky.”

Some of those views not only put him at odds with some U.S. intelligence officials but also many Republican members of Congress who call Putin an autocrat who violates human rights and unlawfully invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea. That tension played out Wednesday on Capitol Hill, where Rex Tillerson, Trump’s choice for secretary of State, faced sharp questions during his initial Senate hearing from members of both parties. The former Exxon Mobil chief has had deep business ties in the country.

Florida Sen. Marco Rubio, a Republican who ran against Trump for president, showed particular frustration that Tillerson would not use the term "war criminal" to describe Putin, in light of atrocities reported in Syria, where Russian troops are aiding government forces.

And although Tillerson criticized Russia's invasion of Ukraine and said policy toward Russia had to be “clear-eyed,” he stuck with his skepticism toward economic sanctions, which he said too often end up hurting U.S. businesses. They have been a key tool for the Obama administration to punish Russia for its incursions into Ukraine.[...]

Democrats warned that Trump was being shortsighted.

“Trump may think that denigrating the intelligence community is good politics, or a useful way to deflect attention from the gravity of Russia's intervention on his behalf during the election,” Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Burbank), the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said in a statement.

At some point, Trump may need to rely on intelligence reports to justify military action overseas, he said.

“By casting doubt on their integrity, by mentioning the intelligence community in the same sentence as Nazi Germany, President-elect Trump is undermining the authority and credibility that he will need as president,” Schiff said.

Supreme Court rules that Rabbinical Court cannot rule on the Get of comatose husband for 21 days

Arutz 7

The High Court heard today (Wednesday) the petition of a woman against the Rabbinical Court presided over by Rishon Letzion Rabbi Yitzhak Yosef, who seeks to reajudicate the efficacy of a divorce (get) granted to a woman by her comatose husband.

The court forbade the rabbinical court to discuss the divorce's legitimacy for 21 days, until a decision on the woman's petition is forthcoming. During this period, the High Rabbinical Court will be in contact with Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit.

The Vice-President of the Supreme Court, Justice Elyakim Rubinstein criticized the decision of Rabbi Yosef to reopen discussion on a get that had already been granted and released a woman from aguna status because the divorce had already been granted. "The court is not a place for symposiums, but rather for judicial decisions . Make a seminar, write articles, but why tamper with things?"

Rubinstein then asked the Legal Adviser to the rabbinical courts if he "knows of a precedent where a man from off the street with no connection to the case submits an appeal and the court is willing to discuss it? He would be shown the door immediately. Who would touch it? What role has he in this story? To summon 11 judges for an expanded hearing [as the Chief Rabbi did]? I understand that this is an halakhic dispute, one hundred percent, but to [actually adjudicate it] in court?"

In 2014, S. was given a divorce in a rare and unprecedented move by a religious court in the northern city of Tzfat, seven years after her husband was severely injured in a car accident and left in a vegetative state. A halakhic get must be granted by the husband and accepted by the wife. The rabbinic court in this case decided that they could be the husband's legal guardian and that he would have wanted to grant the divorce, calling it a get zicui. That principle, however, is used for receiving a get and is a passive, not an active, concept according to other rabbinic authorities.

Shortly after the ruling was issued and the divorce granted, Reuven Cohen, who opposed the decision but is unconnected to the couple in question, filed an appeal with the Supreme Rabbinic Court – the Chief Rabbinate’s highest judicial body – to challenge the divorce on halakhic grounds.

This is an unusual step in the rabbinic courts, although Israel's Supreme Courts constantly accept suits filed by uninvolved parties. Most of the cases involving land ownership in Judea and Samaria are filed by leftist NGOs which do not claim ownership of the land.

Two months ago, the Supreme Rabbinic Court and the chief rabbis decided to take on the case, in a move blasted by Mavoi Satum – The Organization for the Rights of Abandoned Women.[...]

This, however, is not a women's rights issue nor is it a civil rights issue, but a halakhic one. In the past, Chief Rabbi Isaac Herzog and YU Rosh Yeshiva Rabbi Herschel Shachter both expressed serious reservations about using the halakhic concept used in granting the divorce, granting a get zicui. Current Sephardic Rabbi Yitzchak Yosef would like to clarify its use in this case by convening a rabbinic court of 11, since it there is no precedent for it being applied in this way.

Does the Gay Issue Threaten the Continuity of Orthodoxy? by Rabbi Yitzchok Adlerstein

Cross-Currents

An essay penned by the lead educator at a Modern Orthodox high school warned of possible shock. “This may surprise many adults, but the reconciliation of the Torah’s discussion of homosexuality represents the single most formidable religious challenge for our young people today.”

The author’s declaration was every bit as surprising and shocking as he warned it would be. If true, we are looking at a systemic failure of Torah chinuch in significant parts of the Orthodox world. It would be to Orthodoxy what Galileo and Bruno had been to the Church – massive inability to respond appropriately to an intellectual challenge.

Reading on in the essay, the incredulity mounted.

More young people are “coming out” than ever before, and that repeatedly puts a face to this theological challenge…As they go off to college, students invariably face the painful moral dilemma created by the seemingly intractable conflict: believing in the primacy and validity of the Torah on the one hand, and following their hearts’ sense of morality with regard to loving and accepting their gay friends – or perhaps “coming out” themselves—on the other. All too often, this earnest challenge results in our children quietly losing faith in the Torah as a moral way of life. 

In my experience, many, if not most, 20 to 40-year olds in the modern Orthodox world struggle with the issue of homosexuality and the divinity of the Torah. They believe in a kind and just God and they want to believe in the divinity of the Torah. But at the same time they feel fairly certain that being gay is not a matter of choice. In the apparent conflict of these ideas, the first two premises seem to be losing ground.

 Could this really be? A Jewish people fiercely clings to its love and devotion to HKBH through millennia of persecution, pogroms, penury, ghettos, auto-da-fes, Crusades, exile, religious and racial hatred and a Holocaust – only to lose its faith over the banning of behavior foreign to 98% of the population?

In those rare moments when our adversaries forgot about us long enough not to visit those horrors upon us, we contemplated a world in which suffering, disease, child mortality, ever-present warfare, and the brutish subjugation of the many by the few were the rule, not the exception. And we went right on proclaiming the goodness of G-d, Who gave us the Torah we cherished! [...]we never relaxed our conviction about Hashem’s justice – although repeatedly given the opportunity. Moshe emes, v’soroso emes.

And the gay issue is the burden that is too difficult to bear, the one that will open the exit door to observance for Orthodox young people?[...]

In some parts of the community, the question is moot. Gays are not discussed. Even using the word is taboo. What you don’t think about can’t be much of an issue. But this is not the case elsewhere, where people talk about the problem, are aware of families that have children who have come out, and have embraced Rav Aharon Feldman’s now-classic position paper on the subject.[1] They struggle to comprehend the pain and loneliness of people they know about – but giving up on the foundations of Judaism is not part of the response. Why not?

Essentially, we’re asking why Torah chinuch in some parts of the community – certainly no stranger to their own problems – nonetheless is more successful in this area. What does it take to produce loyal Jews rather than emunah-challenged socially orthodox ones?

We should be devoting serious study to this and related issues – meaning the collection of real data analyzed by proper scientific methodologies. Such study remains, at the moment, a pipe-dream. In its absence, I will offer one thought, which should be taken as nothing more than the product of some decades of observation, coupled with personal conjecture.

Two phrases seem notably absent in the conversation in parts of the community, while very much in evidence in others. I believe that they have a profound effect on the orientation of young people. Those phrases are kabolas ole, and avodas Hashem. I rarely – if ever – hear them from my Modern Orthodox students and associates. I hear them often enough in parts of the community further to the right. [...]

The combination of these two phrases is a potent elixir, providing those who drink it with the strength to endure many challenges.

I would never suggest that these two concepts describe the inner life and the outer behavior of the majority of the right-of-center Orthodox world. There are indeed many lapses, in deed and in intent. But words – memes – are important. They help define the boundaries of our thoughts, even if they do not linearly dictate their exact content. They create expectations that exert pressure – sometimes consciously, sometimes not – on behavior. [...]

I don’t have the wherewithal to reintroduce these phrases into the everyday discussion of some parts of the Orthodox world. But for those who read the essay by the high school principal with horror, the reaction should be clear. We should ensure that concepts close to our minds and souls remain in sharp focus. Repeating concepts like kabolas ole and avodas Hashem too often is a far better approach than not often enough.

May it be His Will that they rub off on both our children and ourselves.

[1] Among other things, it reminds us that the Torah forbids behaviors, not orientation; that our dealings with those with SSAs should be compassionate and respectful, rather than contemptuous; that Orthodox men and women with SSAs have a contribution to make to the Orthodox community.

Alshich - Why was woman created from man instead of from earth as man was?

Alshich (Bereishis 2:23): Avos d’Rabbi Nossan(Chapter 4) states, “Only this time is she bone of my bones... but after this a woman will not be from the bone of the man.” This doesn’t seem to be teaching us anything. And furthermore how does this indicate “Therefore a man should leave his wife...”? In fact the opposite seems to be true since except for Adam – man and his wife are not related so why should he cleave to his wife? In fact we wrote before the statement of Rabbi Abahu where he asked about the apparent contradiction. The Torah says “Male and female He created them but it also say “And G-d created the Man”. Rabbi Abahu concludes that initially it occurred to G-d to create two beings but afterwards He actually only created one being. 

We wrote how it is possible to say He created them and He called their name Adam when in fact they had not actually been created? The answer is that there is no question that G-d’s mere thought makes an impression which was that male and female traits were created from the earth. If he had created them totally separately there would be no attraction between them. Therefore He created the male alone in actual deed but the female aspect was created by His thought which was placed in potential in Man in his rib. It was because the female potential was in Man when he was created that both male and female were called Adam because they were both from the earth. Therefore their attraction for each other had to be because she was created from his rib. And they - thought they were two bodies one male and one female - he contained an aspect of the female as we will discuss. This was done deliberately because even though they were separate entities – one being from the spiritual dimension of masculinity while the other from the dimension of femininity – but in G-d’s thought they were both created from the earth in a subtle manner in order that they should have unity. But at the same time he should be dominate and she should be subordinate to him. Therefore in reality they are one because she is included within him. Consequently even when she was taken from him there exists a unity between them and she is subordinate to him. 

All of this is understood from the statement “This time she is bone of my bones.” That is to say this time there is greater unity then the previous time when G-d had thought to create two entities and call them Adam totally from the aspect of thought. That is because now she is in reality bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. Before this there was no unity between us because we were both originally called Adam because we were both from earth and therefore there could be no unity between us because we were to be made separately from earth. However now there is now a connection of unity between us. The reason is because she is called isha (woman) because she was taken from man – i.e. she was not taken from me until I was created as man. Therefore it was good that G-d made us this way and not the way He thought to do initially that we would both be from earth. It was good that she was included within me and then taken out from me. Therefore this explains why she was called woman because she was not made until I was made man. 

Or you can say that if she had been created from a bit of earth it would not indicate unity saying she would not be called Adama (derived from Adam) because adama is the name for earth. But now that she has been taken from the man – the name describes the unity that she was taken from man. 

You can also say that according to what we have written that she did not come from a rib without a nefesh and she did not need to be given a soul. That is because she had a soul already potentially within the rib. Concerning this it is said that if the rib was just a chunk of raw meat and she was created to be just like that bone – then she would not have been called isha for the sake of his rib. That is because since she would have been created from a dead limb there is no reason to describe her as similar to him for the sake of dead matter. But this that she was called woman is because she is derived fully from the man. In other words when the rib was taken from him it was not simply a rib - but she was taken as a full entity that was contained in the rib.