Tefillin or Torah fall – fasting

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

Psak: Choosing vs avoiding error - consequences

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jeffrey Epstein’s Friends Sent Him Bawdy Letters for a 50th Birthday Album. One Was From Donald Trump.

 https://www.wsj.com/politics/trump-jeffrey-epstein-birthday-letter-we-have-certain-things-in-common-f918d796?mod=hp_lead_pos7

The leather-bound book was compiled by Ghislaine Maxwell. The president says the letter ‘is a fake thing.’

It was Jeffrey Epstein’s 50th birthday, and Ghislaine Maxwell was preparing a special gift to mark the occasion. She turned to Epstein’s family and friends. One of them was Donald Trump.

Maxwell collected letters from Trump and dozens of Epstein’s other associates for a 2003 birthday album, according to documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. 

Crockett torches Trump over Epstein: 'He's got something to hide'

Nothing to See here

Trump Calls Epstein Case a "Hoax" & Turns on His "Stupid" Supporters Amid MAGA Mutiny

Coca-Cola dodges after Trump says soda will switch back to cane sugar

 https://www.nbcnews.com/business/business-news/coca-cola-dodges-trump-says-soda-will-switch-back-cane-sugar-rcna219225

President Donald Trump said Wednesday that Coca-Cola in the United States will begin to be made with cane sugar, but the company did not explicitly say that was the case when it was asked later about Trump’s claim.

'Not going away': Ex-GOP rep hurls Trump Jr.'s old tweets back at president

 https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/not-going-away-ex-gop-rep-hurls-trump-jr-s-old-tweets-back-at-president/ar-AA1IJG4z?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=NMTS&cvid=68780b48203a46e3aaf14a1065b248c7&ei=28

Kinzinger said there are two things that Americans should keep in mind regarding the Epstein files story. First, Epstein was arrested in 2019 under the first Trump administration. Epstein's accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, is also in jail. The combination of these two points suggests that there is a client list despite Trump's repeated assertions that it is a hoax.

Second, Trump "built a political movement" on the back of the Epstein case, Kinzinger said. He used the case to create a story about Democratic elites operating a child sex trafficking ring, and then positioned himself as someone fighting back against that cabal.

"Either they lied about this conspiracy over and over to win an election, or they're covering something up," Kinzinger said on CNN's "The Arena with Kasie Hunt."

Danon blasts Guterres: UN silent on Syria massacre, targets Israel

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/411791

In response, Danon said, “UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres continues to expose his moral bankruptcy. While members of the Druze community are being brutally slaughtered in Syria, he once again chooses silence.”

“Instead of calling for swift action in Syria, he chooses to vilify Israel—the only country actively fighting the forces of evil in the region,” added the Israeli envoy.

Branding Matters: What's In a Name?

 20 Tammuz, 5785/ Parshas Pinchos

Q: How do the following coalesce: (1) the recent Parshiyos HaShavuah - Bolok and Pinchos; (2) the fast of the 17th of Tammuz; and (3) this week's Daf Yomi - meseches Avoda Zorah, daf 26, 27 and 28? 

A: They all relate, in some manner, to incitement to - or devotees of incitement to - Avoda Zorah. It's noteworthy that Shiva Assar BeTammuz - when many Jews fell into the terrible sin of the Chait Ha'Aigel - ultimately leading to public defection to Avoda Zorah (idolatry) - is immediately followed - this year - by the Daf haYomi learning of three separate Gemaras on three consecutive blatt - all involving Minnim. [Minnim are devotees of Avoda Zorah, suspect of promoting their Avoda Zorah agenda, even where the average idolatrous gentile is not suspected of doing so.]

Furthermore, these all fall out on the week between Parshas Bolok and Pinchus, parshiyos which end and begin, respectively, with the idolatrous abomination of Ba'al Pe'or, and the timeless leadership exhibited by Pinchus - rescuing the Nation from epic Divine Retribution (Bam. 25:1-18).

We beg indulgence of the esteemed tzibbur to encapsulate a clarification BE"H of a very relevant but poorly grasped sugya - pertaining to Minnim and Minnus - found in two of those very selections of Daf Yomi of this week - Avoda Zorah 27b and 28a. (See our kuntrus Mishmeres HaKodesh and/or our online posts on Da'at Torah blogspot for more details.)

The Gemara on 27b addresses the very commonly applicable prohibition of Avoda-Zorah-by-Attribution, "Ain Misrapin min HaMinnim."  That is a Rabbinic edict prohibiting merely benefiting (even in absence of any worship) from mystical therapies/ techniques whose effectiveness (real or imagined) is attributed to idolatrous or heretical notions. [Numerous additional prohibitions may apply to such mystical therapies when performed isolated from any idolatrous or heretical attributions. However, that's beyond our scope here, and is addressed extensively elsewhere, including online (e.g. Da'at Torah blogspot. Furthermore, there are those Rishonim who extend this prohibition to non-mystical therapies. However that more stringent view is not quoted in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Daiyah 155:1; therefore we won't address it here.]

The rationale behind this prohibition is as follows: In case the mystical techniques would work, then the absence of an evident natural mechanism - combined with the fact that the practitioner attributed it to Avoda Zorah - may lead someone to succumb to the heretical myth that Avoda Zorah has some inherent power. That error would constitute high heresy, inasmuch as it is a foundational Jewish conviction (often translated as "belief") that no entity other than G-d has the ability to harm or help us based on its own independent "will" (see Chazon Ish, Yoreh Daiyoh 62:19, for example).

Therefore, to safeguard Jews against the hazard of succumbing to such a heretical misconception, Our Sages require us to sacrifice our lives rather than benefit from such "healing" - precisely because of how it's identified/ labelled, or "branded."  They required one to sacrifice his or her life out of a concern for a possible (spiritual) threat to Emunah - in the face of a certain danger to their physical life (see Teshuvas Maharam Shik, O.C. 304). Thus, the "mere" idolatrous "branding" of a mystical therapy, such as a lachash, an incantation,  transforms that lachash to be prohibited to the extent of sacrificing one's life to avoid it, a status termed "Yaihoraig ve'al Ya'avor."

Unfortunately, that sugya in A.Z. 27b (continued on 28a) is widely misunderstood.  Additionally, one popular English language aide does not at all well serve the public in that regard. The unaware or misinformed reader could easily come away with the misimpression that the prohibition is applicable only in cases when the therapy is performed by an overt pagan missionary, a Min (in other words, that it's only an "issur gavrah"). However, if the practitioner doesn't fall under that Min/ devotee profile, this prohibition, they imagine, doesn't apply.

This misunderstanding is perhaps even more dangerous than it is wrong.

In fact, that issur (prohibition) is more fundamentally an issur "cheftzah" - prohibited by virtue of the actual attribution to idolatrous/ heretical notions - regardless of who attributes it to Avoda Zorah. That means that the issur would similarly apply to a frum Yid unaware of the nature of the terms he's using (e.g. Qi, Ch-i, K-i, Vital-Force, Y-in/ Y-ang, universal-energy, subtle-energy, etc.*) to describe the mechanism or nature of the technique.

[* See the end of the Psak published in the Sefer Rav Belsky on Alternative Medicine et.al., Judaica Press, page 130.  The concept of "universal energy"/ Ki, Q-i/Ch-i, et.al. is a heretical concept; its' worldview is a heretical worldview; and all associated notions must be totally avoided.]

Now, on top of that basic prohibition, there is an additional stringency introduced by the gavrah - in the case of a Minn practitioner - a devotee of A.Z./ heresy.

This Halachic nuance is clarified by the Ran on Avoda Zorah (s.v. "Ve'ikka," quoted by the Maharsha), and the Rosh (2:9), and cited leHalacha in Shulchan Aruch Yoreh Daiyoh 155:1, end.  Any attribution to idolatry/ heresy prohibits a mystical therapy/ practice/ technique -- even if the attributor is not a devotee, a Min. A devotee, however, does introduce an additional stringency - inasmuch as his involvement in performing such therapies prohibits them even in the absence of any overt attribution to idolatry/ heresy - because we assume that he is indeed attributing his mystical therapy to idolatrous/ heretical notions.

••• More information on a range of related concerns is found in the Sefer Rav Belsky on Alternative Medicine et.al., Judaica Press; in particular see the Psak on page 128-130. 

••• For shailos and questions, please email Tomim1679@gmail.com, or text/call 845-642-1679, or, from Eretz Yisroel, call 03-721-3337.

May we start off these Three Weeks by expediting the Final Redemption in the merit of helping save all who wish to be saved from falling into the types of iniquities that perpetuate this bitter Galus. Furthermore, may the efforts to blunt the influence of Minnim and eliminate brazen detractors of authentic Emunah provide much needed merits in reducing our communal susceptibility to Middas HaDin, as Chazal exhort us:

כשיש עבודה זרה בעולם - יש חרון אף בעולם...

Good Shabbos,

נתן שמואל לייטער

Rabbi Noson Shmuel Leiter,

Executive Director,

Tomim Tih'yeh 

Monsey, NY

845.642.1679

Direct: 771.215.8892

Israeli Helpline: 03.721.3337 עזרה בארץ ישראל

Presentations on New-Age dangers: 605-313-6831 ext. 2  לשיעורים 

Tomim Tih'yeh: tomim1679@gmail.com

Heard weekly on New Jersey's WSNR Radio 620AM, on the renowned LevinAt11 program, every Thursday evening, 11pm to midnight (Eastern Time).

Alan Dershowitz confirms ‘for a fact’ Epstein list exists after Pami Bondi blasted for humiliating cover-up

Trump Turns on MAGA: Only ‘Bad People’ Buy ‘Epstein Hoax’

 https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/trump-maga-only-bad-people-buy-epstein-files-hoax.html

Donald Trump is in quite the predicament. Whenever there’s a story he doesn’t like, he just dismisses it as a “hoax” and attacks anyone who keeps talking about it as “bad people,” “scum,” “the enemy of the people,” or perhaps some combination of these insults.

But right now, the story the president would like to go away is his administration’s failure to release the Jeffrey Epstein “client list” or any truly revelatory information about the late sex offender. And the people most incensed about this story aren’t Democrats or the mainstream media but MAGA influencers and other elements of the GOP base, who believed Team Trump when they promoted the Epstein story as a “deep state” conspiracy that would be exposed as soon as he returned to the White House.

Later on Wednesday morning, Trump chided “stupid” Republicans for playing into Democrats’ hands by demanding the answers they were promised on Epstein.

“It’s all been a big hoax; it’s perpetrated by the Democrats,” he said. “And some stupid Republicans and foolish Republicans fall into the net and so they do the Democrats’ work.”

So from one perspective, Trump is escalating the conflict with his own supporters like never before. But from another perspective, you’re not truly MAGA if you believe what Trump told you to think a few months ago, rather than what he’s telling you to believe today. So he’s actually only lashing out at Democrats and their “stupid” ex-MAGA allies. Problem solved!

Havdala - Standing or Sitting

Igros Moshe (OC V #20.17) Question Should Havdala be said standing or sitting?Answer The most widespread custom is to say havdala standing. Because this is not viewed as merely a beracha on eating or drinking. This seems reasonable because in fact it is prohibited to eat and drink before saying Havdalah and itself it is not a type of eating. In fact even if you don’t eat at all you still need to say havdala and according to Rashi you don’t even need to drink the wine of havdala and it is not considered a vain beracha. So the beracha said on the wine is clearly not viewed as a beracha on pleasure and therefore there is no requirement to sit. It would follow from this that havdala should only be said standing. However many sit for havdala since one person says for others and that requires sitting. Thus it is a dispute among the poskim whether sitting or standing is better. Therefore it is best to follow the custom of one’s father. I personally say havdala sitting as this was my father’s custom.

Igros Moshe (OC V #16.5) Question: Regardings those who say Kiddush standing what do they do for Pesach? Answer  The custom to stand even in the home is not based on halacha.  The Rema indicates (271:10) that it is best not to stand for kiddush because it is not so much the place of the meal however if a person really wants he can stand. Thus he clearly gives preference to sitting. Thus those who insist on standing for kiddush are going against the Remah and thus the custom. Even for Havdalah where the common practice is to stand, the Remah says there are those who stand for havdala and this is the prevailing custom. Tosfos also notes that the prevailing custom is to stand and notes that there is a problem when it is said for others since kevius is required which requires sitting. Tosfos also doesn’t say that one must stand because of custom and indicates it is best to sit for Havdalah.  . Consequently  everyone agrees that for kiddush it is best to sit even if it means that for saying vayechulu it is necessary to stand and the Remah adds that one can remain standing for the rest of kiddush. Nevertheless he concludes it is best to sit. Thus vayechulu is said standing  and then one should sit for the rest of kiddush . He even says there are those who sit also for vayechulu since vayechulu was already said standing in ynagogue. . 

Megyn Kelly and Ben Shapiro Debate Whether Epstein Was an Intelligence Asset for America or Israel