Death and Impurity

 Kli Yakar (Vayikra 21:03) The reason for the prohibition of impurity is because of the spirit of impurity that remains attached to the human body. Therefore it is said he shall not become impure for a soul and it does not say “by a soul” because the soul itself is pure and has no aspect of impurity. However, the soul is the cause of impurity because all other living creatures that do not have a rational soul but only a life force — their death is merely the separation of the four elements, and the Angel of Death is not involved with them at all. Therefore, they do not have severe impurity. But the human soul does not depart except through the Angel of Death, who removes it from there against its will, as our Sages said, “Against your will you die.” The Angel of Death comes from the side of impurity and brings impurity upon the body. This excludes the righteous and unique individuals of the generation whose death is by a divine kiss, not through the Angel of Death, and they have no aspect of impurity at all. Therefore, our Sages said that on the day Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi died, the priesthood was suspended because the priests did not become impure from him at all. 

 Recanti (Chukas 19:14) This is the law of one who dies in the tent. You already know that a gentile, while alive, is impure and transmits impurity due to the impurity dwelling within his body; yet when he dies, that spirit departs from him, and therefore he does not transmit impurity via a tent—for the established principle among us is that the graves of gentiles do not transmit impurity via a tent, based on the verse "When a *man* dies," implying that the nations of the world are not designated as "*man*." However, the case of a Jew is the opposite: during his lifetime, a holy spirit dwells within him, yet upon death, he is impure and transmits impurity. There is a profound mystery here: when the spirit of impurity perceives a vessel of purity—now devoid of the holy spirit—it comes and settles within it, rendering everything inside it impure and capable of transmitting impurity. For this reason, it is customary to guard the bodies of the dead to prevent an evil spirit from entering them, for they yearn to complete their formation—understand this well.

Death and Tumah

 Recanti (Chukas 19:14) This is the law of one who dies in the tent. You already know that a gentile, while alive, is impure and transmits impurity due to the impurity dwelling within his body; yet when he dies, that spirit departs from him, and therefore he does not transmit impurity via a tent—for the established principle among us is that the graves of gentiles do not transmit impurity via a tent, based on the verse "When a *man* dies," implying that the nations of the world are not designated as "*man*." However, the case of a Jew is the opposite: during his lifetime, a holy spirit dwells within him, yet upon death, he is impure and transmits impurity. There is a profound mystery here: when the spirit of impurity perceives a vessel of purity—now devoid of the holy spirit—it comes and settles within it, rendering everything inside it impure and capable of transmitting impurity. For this reason, it is customary to guard the bodies of the dead to prevent an evil spirit from entering them, for they yearn to complete their formation—understand this well.

‘We intended to be away for 2 years, it’s been 4’: why Israeli doctors are staying abroad

 https://www.ynetnews.com/health_science/article/hkxobxhofg?tbref=hp

Nearly 1,400 physicians left Israel between 2023 and 2025; doctors abroad cite war, politics, education and career prospects, while senior specialists warn the loss of experienced physicians could weaken Israeli medicine for years

In August 2023, just two months before the outbreak of the war, Dr. Roi Sar-El, 43, and Dr. Muriel Sar-El, 41, left Israel with their three children and moved to Boston. Roi, a psychiatrist who worked at Ichilov Hospital, and Muriel, a dermatologist, moved to the United States as part of a planned step — both wanted to specialize in fields that are less developed in Israel, and today they work at hospitals affiliated with Harvard University. Unlike many who have left Israel in recent years, their decision was not driven by the war or the political climate. But life has a rhythm of its own. Their stay, which was supposed to last two years, has so far stretched to four — and the situation in Israel, they say, played a part.

“We left without any connection to the national situation, but as part of long-term career planning,” Roi told ynet and Yedioth Ahronoth. “But here we are, already in our fourth year. The period was extended, and of course the complex situation in Israel played a role in that. There was a sense that we were giving the children more time to grow up in a quiet and protected environment, knowing that afterward we would return to a full life in Israel, and that this was an opportunity that might not come again.”

Adidas apologizes for ‘offense’ over promotion featuring ex-IDF soldier who lost leg in 2021

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/adidas-apologizes-for-offense-over-promotion-featuring-ex-idf-soldier-who-lost-leg-in-2021/

Adidas apologized on Monday for any “offense” it caused by featuring a wounded Israel Defense Forces veteran in its promotional campaign for a service enabling amputee athletes to buy just one running shoe.

The posters featuring Biton were only used in Israel and not as part of a global campaign. The Hebrew-language video that sparked the controversy made no mention of his army service or how he lost his leg.

Pro-Palestinian activists, however, panned the company for working with Biton, citing the high number of amputees in the Strip, and in particular children, as a result of the recent war there.

Much of the criticism falsely claimed that Biton was involved in the recent fighting in Gaza and accused him of having participated in “genocide,” or that he had lost his leg while serving in Gaza in 2021.

The 10 biggest reasons why Trump is so unpopular

Is Complaining to Trump Mesira?

 Garnel Ironheart September 6, 2026 at 4:22 AM

Here's the question of the week

How is multiple Chasidic rebbes going to Trump and demanding that he prevent Israel from drafting chareidim not mesirah?

AI answers

In classical Jewish law, complaining about the Israeli government to Donald Trump—or any foreign leader—generally does not constitute mesira (the forbidden act of informing on a fellow Jew to hostile non-Jewish authorities).

Why It Is Not Mesira

1. Democratic and Diplomatic Context: The prohibition of mesira was historically codified to prevent individuals from handing over a fellow Jew or Jewish property to lawless, predatory, or antisemitic rulers who would act extrajudicially. Reporting or complaining to a democratically elected leader of a friendly, allied nation—especially the United States—does not fall under this category.

2. Public Officials and Sovereign Entities: Halachic authorities overwhelmingly rule that the prohibition of mesira applies to private individuals and their personal property. It does not apply to open political criticism, diplomatic lobbying, or disagreements regarding public officials and state governance.

3. Transparency of Public Records: Mesira inherently involves exposing hidden or private actions to an authority. Because the actions, policies, and budgets of the Israeli government are entirely public information, discussing or complaining about them to foreign officials does not expose "secret" information to cause arbitrary harm.

Halachic Perspectives

Modern halachic consensus maintains that citizens, politicians, and organizations have the right to lobby or voice dissatisfaction regarding government policies to foreign allies. While some far-right or extremist groups occasionally weaponize the term "moser" (informer) against political opponents or NGOs that brief foreign governments, mainstream authorities reject this application, viewing it as standard political discourse rather than a violation of Jewish law.

Jews saved from Impure Place by G-d

 Shemos Rabbah (15:05) Great was the love God showed to Israel in that He revealed Himself in a place of idol-worship, immorality, and uncleanness in order to redeem them. He was like a priest whose terumah had fallen into a cemetery, and who said to himself: ‘What shall I do? To make myself unclean is impossible, and to leave the terumah there is also impossible. Better for me to make myself unclean once and then purify myself again, so that I do not lose my terumah altogether.’ Our forefathers were God's terumah, as it says:Israel is the Lord's hallowed portion, His first-fruits of the increase. They were among graves, for it says: For there was not a house where there was not one dead, and also While the Egyptians were burying them. God said: ' How can I redeem them? To leave them there is impossible, better that I should go down and deliver them, as it says: And I am come down to deliver them out of the hand of the Egyptians. As soon as He brought them out, He called Aaron and He purified him, as it says: And he shall make atonement for the most holy place

Sleep and Tumah

 Zohar (01 10b)  For while a man is asleep his soul departs from him and an impure spirit comes forth and settles on his hands and defiles them: hence one may not pronounce a blessing without first washing them. Why then, one may ask, is it forbidden, after one has been in a privy, to pronounce a blessing or to read even one word of the Torah, even in the daytime, without washing the hands, although one has not been asleep, so that one's soul did not depart, and one's hands have not been defiled by an evil spirit? Why is it forbidden even if one's hands are quite clean? The answer is: woe to those who pay no heed to the majesty of their Master, and do not realise on what this world is founded. There is in every privy a spirit which feasts on filth and excrement, and settles forthwith on the fingers of a man's hands.’

Zohar (1:53b) When men sleep on their beds at night-time and night spreads her wings over the world, they are having a foretaste of death, and in consequence the unclean spirit is let loose in the world, carrying pollution. In particular it rests upon a man's hands and defiles them, so that when he wakes up and his soul is restored to him, everything which he touches with his hands is rendered unclean. Hence a man should be careful when dressing not to take his garments from a person who has not washed his hands, because in this way he draws upon himself the unclean spirit and becomes defiled. This spirit is authorised to settle in every place where there is the merest trace of the side from which it issues. Hence a man should not let water be poured over his hands by one who has not yet washed his own hands, because in this way he draws on himself the unclean spirit, from contact with the one who pours water over him.

Shabbos (108b) If the hand be put to the eye, let it be cut off; the hand to the nose, let it be cut off: the hand to the mouth, let it be cut off; the hand to the ear, let it be cut off; the hand to the vein opened for blood letting, let it be cut off; the hand to the membrum, let it be cut off; the hand to the anus, let it be cut off; the hand to the vat, let it be cut off: because the unwashed hand leads to blindness, the hand leads to deafness, the hand causes a polypus. It was taught, R. Nathan said: It is a free agent, and insists on remaining on the hands until one washes his hands three times. 

Shabbos (109a) It is a free agent, and insists on remaining on the hands until one washes his hands three times. R. Johanan said: Stibium removes cures the Princess, stops the tears, and promotes the growth of the eye-lashes. It was taught likewise, R. Jose said: Stibium removes the Princess, stops the tears, and promotes the growth of the eye-lashes.

9-year-old in serious condition after contracting 'brain-eating amoeba' in Sea of Galilee

 https://www.israelhayom.com/2026/09/06/9-year-old-in-serious-condition-after-contracting-brain-eating-amoeba-in-sea-of-galilee/

Following the case, the Health Ministry reiterated its recommendations for precautions when swimming in warm freshwater, chiefly avoiding getting water in the nose as much as possible, particularly when diving, jumping into the water or submerging the head. Swimmers can also use nose clips or hold their noses closed. The ministry also recommended avoiding digging into or stirring up sediment in shallow water, where higher concentrations of the amoeba may be present.

Regarding symptoms, the ministry said that anyone who has recently been exposed to warm freshwater and suddenly develops a fever, severe headache, nausea or vomiting should pay close attention to their condition. If those symptoms are followed by a stiff neck, confusion, unusual drowsiness or changes in consciousness, urgent medical attention is required, and the patient or family should explicitly tell medical staff about the freshwater exposure, as the disease can progress extremely rapidly.

Gafni’s ouster marks a changing era for Israel’s haredi parties - and for Netanyahu - analysis

 https://www.jpost.com/israel-election-2026/article-907743

By pushing Gafni out of the next Knesset, the party's rabbinic leadership has served notice that Netanyahu will have to win the haredim back rather than simply count them in.

There is a considerable irony here. As a longtime MK and seemingly permanent chairman of the powerful Knesset Finance Committee, Gafni was perhaps the most accomplished parliamentary tactician in haredi politics. He mastered the political system, knew how to work its levers, and succeeded in channeling tremendous budgets to his constituents.

Yet all that parliamentary mastery could not deliver the one result his community – or at least its most respected rabbis – considered essential. And that raises a broader question: Has the traditional haredi method of working within the parliamentary system to protect and preserve the yeshiva world run its course?

Cardiac Circumcision vs. Cardiac Transplant: A Rejoinder to R. Aharon Lichtenstein by Rav Shalom C. Spira

    Last week, we read: "Ha-Shem, Your G-d, will circumcise your heart and the heart of your seed" (Deut. 30:6). Mishnah Berurah, Orach Chaim 581, intro, observes that the Hebrew words et levavkha ve-et levav spell by way of acronym "Elul," the current month that is devoted to cardiac circumcision (a metaphor for repentance).

    As I have previously argued at Halakhic Bioethic | PDF | Talmud | Judaism, such cardiac circumcision requires abjuring cardiac transplantation. Since a brain dead patient is potentially alive according to Torah law, the obligatory mitzvah of piku'ach nefesh requires us to rescue the comatose patient and a fortiori to avoid harvesting organs from him/her. One of the sources I incorporated into this essay is a statement I heard from R. Aharon Lichtenstein during the summer of 5760 (corresponding to 2000 on the secular calendar) publicly declaring that the words of Me'iri must be followed le-chumra [and not le-kula]; see text accompanying footnote 92.

    Yet, the newly released Tradition 58:3 (Summer 2026) showcases an essay posthumously ascribed to the very same R. Aharon Lichtenstein [reportedly authored in 2013], which allows the family of a brain dead patient to choose to donate the patient's organs. [Available here: Tears of the Afflicted: Reflections on a Current Proposal Regarding Organ Donation | Tradition Online] When read back-to-back with my own essay, this would imply that Rabbi Lichtenstein reversed course in the period between 2000 and 2013. Indeed, in footnote 4, the editors of Rabbi Lichtenstein's posthumous essay acknowledge "we believe it is probable that R. Lichtenstein's position on this topic evolved over the years." [The editors then refer to a YouTube video whose link is unfortunately broken and hence cannot be accessed for verification.]

    As a matter of practical Halakhah, this essay posthumously ascribed to Rabbi Lichtenstein cannot justify donating organs, due to the following seven considerations:

1. On pp. 8-9, the author claims he is inclined to allow donating organs from the brain dead patient because it is estimated that 100 patients in Eretz Yisrael die annually of organ failure, not to speak of countless parallel cases in the Diaspora. Alas, this is an appeal to human emotions to attempt to override Torah law. Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 5:5 , followed by Rema to Shulchan Arukh Yoreh De'ah 157:1, clearly rule that we cannot sacrifice one innocent life even to save an entire community. [For further discussion, see SURVEY OF RECENT HALAKHIC LITERATURE: Rescue Dilemmas | Tradition Online.] Moreover, well known in yeshivah circles is the inference drawn from Rambam, Hilkhot Yesodei ha-Torah 5:1 ("The entire House of Israel is commanded regarding sanctification of this Great Name") that even if the entire Jewish People would be (Heaven forbid) in danger, it still is forbidden to sacrifice one innocent life in order to rescue the entire Jewish People.
2. On p. 10, the author critiques the RCA Vaad Halacha study on brain death [released by R. Asher Bush in 5770, and which argues in favour of considering the brain dead patient to be alive] for assigning primacy "to the parameters which limit life-saving rather than to measures which enhance its prospects." Alas, that accusation overlooks the argument [of R. J. David Bleich, Bioethical Dilemmas Vol. 1, ch. 4] that the life of a comatose patient also has philosophical value. Rabbi Bleich compares humanity to a musical orchestra where every player contributes to the visual magnificence of the performance. Some musicians have to be silent to fulfill their role, but they are still accomplishing their purpose even when they are quiescent. [Likewise, the comatose patient silently contributes to the perceived Majesty of the Creator, simply by the comatose patient existing in his/her hospital bed.] Ergo, from the perspective of the comatose patient, the RCA Vaad Halacha is indeed enhancing the prospects of life-saving.
   [Parenthetically, the RCA link to the Vaad Halacha study, cited in footnote 1 of my essay, has been recently disabled by the RCA for unspecified reasons. The interested reader can nevertheless find a facsimile of it on the HODS website at Vaad Halacha Teshuvah on Brain Death and Organ Transplantation: Consolidated. I will take the present opportunity to congratulate HODS for offering the public this service, a meaningful gesture of cardiac circumcision given the reality that HODS is the target of the RCA Vaad Halacha study's attack.]
3. On pp. 10-11, the author claims that failing to transplant an organ into a patient who needs the organ to survive is an act of overt murder, based on the Gemara, Sanhedrin 76b-77b regarding metzamtzem. Hence, for the author, the only way to avoid the charge of overt murder is to advocate donating organs from brain dead patients. Alas, this is a misreading of Sanhedrin 76b-77b. The Gemara refers to tying down a person trying to escape mortal danger. By contradistinction, mere passive failure to provide medical care for a patient in organ failure [while assuredly a serious transgression of Leviticus 19:16] is certainly not an overt act of murder.
   Now, it is true that in a somewhat related context, viz. Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity: Celebrating the Siyum on Sotah: Managing Brain Dead Patients by Rabbi Shalom C. Spira, I did cite R. Shlomo Yosef Zevin as inferring from Sotah 45b that passive euthanasia is tantamount to murder. However, "tantamount" is not the same as legal equivalence. To that effect, Rabbi Zevin is condemning passive euthanasia where the bystander could have accomplished more but refused and thereby violated Leviticus 19:16. Here, by contradistinction, in the case of organ donation, the bystander cannot actually accomplish anymore without risking the prospect of active murder. Hence, the bystander would be shielded from violation of Leviticus 19:16 by virtue of the principle anoose Rachamana patreih (Nedarim 27a).
4. On p. 12, the author rebukes the RCA Vaad Halacha study by exclaiming "have we subliminally forgotten that we are, possibly, signing death warrants seriatim [since the recipient will not receive the organ required to save his life]!" Alas, this rebuke is a non sequitur. By the author of the posthumous essay encouraging organ donation, he is also possibly signing death warrants seriatim, since comatose patients will now be potentially murdered.
5. On p. 13, the author claims that the doubt regarding brain death is subjective and therefore every posek can rule as he sits fit. Alas, as R. Chaim Zimmerman explains in his introduction to Agan ha-Sahar [regarding the international dateline], Orthodox Judaism believes that Torah law is objective and not subjective. [Available here: אגן הסהר - צימרמן, אהרן חיים (page 2 of 508)]. The same point is reiterated by R. Joseph Ber Soloveitchik in his 1975 "Gerus and Mesorah" lecture repudiating R. Emanuel Rackman who fraudulently advocated "rescuing" agunot by allowing them to plead kiddushei ta'ut. [Available here: YUTorah Online] And the same point is further reinforced by R. J. David Bleich in his introduction to Contemporary Halakhic Problems Vol. 4.
6. On p. 18, the author focuses on the controversy that erupted in 1986 when the Israeli Chief Rabbinate allowed harvesting organs from brain dead patients. The posthumous essay claims that the RCA Vaad Halacha study [of R. Asher Bush] contends that the 1986 controversy was based on the allegation that the Israeli Chief Rabbinate was relying on a forged responsum of R. Moshe Feinstein. To this allegation, the posthumous essay remonstrates with a cri de coeur: "Yet, do the authors of the study truly expect the average observant family to stake the life of a child or a spouse on the result of a debate regarding the possible fabrication of this teshuvah? And how would we respond if the family wanted to know whether the teshuvah was directed to a particular concrete case, and its anguish effectively discounted, or had been composed as an abstract directive?"
   Alas, the posthumous essay is confused here, and clarity should optimally be restored by a careful review of the facts, as follows: (a) The allegation of forgery raised by Rabbi Bush (on p. 55 of the study) specifically relates to the Bondi letter, which was only first published in 1992, several years after the Israeli Chief Rabbinate already issued its 1986 verdict. [The Bondi letter was then republished in the posthumously published eighth volume of Iggerot Mosheh, which thereby ensured that the eighth volume of Iggerot Mosheh was surrounded by polemic.] By contradistinction, the Israeli Chief Rabbinate verdict of 1986 was based [not on the Bondi letter, but rather] on a disputed interpretation of Iggerot Mosheh, Yoreh De'ah, III, no. 132 [published in 1982 when R. Moshe Feinstein was already ill and not available to clarify his words to the public], and it is this disputed interpretation which caused many poskim to protest against the Israeli Chief Rabbinate. See Rabbi Bleich's 1989 survey of these poskim [when the Bondi letter had not yet been published and so was yet unknown] at Of Cerebral, Respiratory and Cardiac Death | Tradition Online. (b) Although Rabbi Bush never himself raises a claim of forgery regarding Iggerot Mosheh, III, Yoreh De'ah no. 132, it is indeed the case that two other scholars [as distinct from Rabbi Bush] have accused the sixth volume of Iggerot Mosheh [which contains YD 3:132] of being marred by forgery. Specifically, as reported by R. Yonatan Roseman, Petichat ha-Iggerot, p. 489 and again on p. 664, R. David Feinstein (son of Reb Moshe) alleges that YD 3:48 was never written by Reb Moshe. [Available here: פתיחת האגרות - יונתן רוזמן (page 543 of 854) and פתיחת האגרות - יונתן רוזמן (page 726 of 854)]. And R. Menasheh Klein, Teshuvot Mishneh Halakhot, XII, no. 214, has accused YD 3:114 of being forged. However, Rabbi Klein subsequently retracts that accusation in Teshuvot Mishneh Halakhot, XVI, no. 102. (c) Regarding the seventh volume of Iggerot Mosheh, published in 1985 when Reb Moshe was incapacitated, there are indeed those who accuse it of forgery [perhaps greater in number and stature than those who attacked the sixth volume], as documented in footnote 239 of Halakhic Bioethic | PDF | Talmud | Judaism. However, such an accusation was never levelled by Rabbi Bush himself [and, ironically, levelling such an accusation would have the effect of cancelling one of the arguments to consider brain dead patients as being alive, as elucidated in the aforementioned footnote 239]. (d) R. Moshe Feinstein, first volume of Iggerot Mosheh (which is certainly authentic), intro (final two paragraphs), asks the reader not to rely on any of his responsa unless the reader independently investigates and concurs with the conclusion. Thus, to respond to the cri de coeur of [the posthumous essay ascribed to] Rabbi Lichtenstein, we certainly will never "stake the life of a child or a spouse" on a responsum within Iggerot Mosheh (whether authentic or forged) before independently investigating  it using proper methods of the Oral Torah, as Reb Moshe himself demanded of us. And my essay has endeavoured to accomplish that [be-ezrat Ha-Shem Yitbarakh], concluding that the brain dead patient is potentially alive. On this I would argue with a clean conscience that we are indeed allowed-and-obligated to stake the life of a child or a spouse.
7. Rabbi Lichtenstein is not the sole Israeli decisor whose responsum on brain death has been posthumously published. In Chut Shani on the Days of Awe (Bnei Brak, 5781), p. 544, letters posthumously ascribed to R. Shmuel ha-Levi Wosner, R. Nissim Karelitz and R. Joseph Shalom Eliashiv appear in response to the question of the secular Knesset legislating recognition of brain death. All three of them announce that a brain dead patient is alive and that organs may never be harvested from him/her. [Available at חוט שני - ראש השנה, יום כיפור, סוכות, חנוכה, פורים, תשובה, תוכחה, לשון הרע - קרליץ, שמריהו יוסף נסים בן נחום מאיר ("הגאב"ד") 1926-2019 - הוכמן, חיים אריה הלוי (עורך) (page 548 of 572) ] In the case of these three decisors, their posthumous decision is fully consistent with what they already announced during their lifetime [unlike the situation of Rabbi Lichtenstein, where his view changed from what was announced during his lifetime to what was announced posthumously, as noted earlier]. This should further assuage our conscience that it is halakhically correct to treat the brain dead patient as being alive.
   
   
    [End of seven considerations]

    At the same time, a different halakhic issue is raised by the posthumous essay attributed to Rabbi Lichtenstein, and here the evidence supports him. Namely, the posthumous essay (pp. 15-16) decries the asymmetrical ethic of forbidding organ donation but allowing organ reception. And on this, the posthumous essay is vindicated by footnote 309 of Halakhic Bioethic | PDF | Talmud | Judaism. Indeed, my own father [who was in heart failure for 10.5 years] heroically gave his life al Kiddush Ha-Shem rather than accept a cardiac transplant [which he was repeatedly offered, yet he refused as a matter of conscience because he realized one cannot murder one patient in order to rescue a different patient], as explained in my eulogy for him at Daas Torah - Issues of Jewish Identity:  A Eulogy for my Father   by Rav Shalom C. Spira. Even here, though, I do not feel that the healthcare profession should caricaturize Orthodox Jews for discrimination. Organ failure and brain death are not phenomena that were engineered by Orthodox Jews. Rather, all human beings are commanded by the Noahide Code to refrain from murder, and so no human being should ever be willing to orchestrate an organ harvest on a brain dead patient, even for so noble a purpose as rescuing another patient from organ failure. 

    As Rosh ha-Shanah approaches, I wish all readers of the Daas Torah website that we should be blessed with much "brain life" and indeed be inscribed in the Book of Life.

    Rabbi Spira works as the Editor of Manuscripts and Grants at the Lady Davis Institute for Medical Research [a Pavillion of the Jewish General Hospital] in Montreal, Canada.

Haredi shakeup: Gafni, Maklev reportedly ousted from Degel HaTorah slate

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/432745

Degel HaTorah party officials on Saturday night claimed that MKs Moshe Gafni and Uri Maklev will not be included on the party's slate in the upcoming elections.

Gafni and Maklev have attempted in recent days to fight the decision to remove them from the Knesset. Despite their efforts, the sources claim that the decision has already been made.

If the move goes ahead, it would bring Gafni's lengthy Knesset career to an end, 38 years after he was first elected. Maklev, also one of Degel HaTorah's veteran representatives in the Knesset, is likewise expected to be left off the slate, according to the officials.

Toronto rabbis spark backlash with burial ban over assisted dying

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/432656

A decision by Toronto's Orthodox rabbis' council has sparked a heated religious and public debate across Canada over how Jewish communities should respond when a patient chooses physician-assisted death. According to CJN, the council recently adopted a strict policy opposing the practice, including significant restrictions on the religious services available to patients who die through assisted dying.

Under the policy, the council's rabbis will not participate in the funerals of patients who chose euthanasia and will generally refuse permission for such individuals to be buried in cemetery sections affiliated with Orthodox synagogues. The decision comes amid a significant increase in the use of medical assistance in dying in Canada. According to Canadian health data cited in the report, approximately 5,000 Ontario residents chose medical assistance in dying in 2023. Since Canada legalized the procedure roughly a decade ago, more than 75,000 people have chosen it, and assisted deaths now account for more than 5% of all deaths in the country.

The Orthodox rabbis' council described the practice as "euthanasia by doctors" and said its policy was intended to prevent what it considers an impermissible practice from becoming normalized within the Jewish community. Rabbi Yosef Uziel, the council's spokesman, said the decision followed extensive discussions intended to uphold Jewish law while maintaining sensitivity toward those involved.

Former Air Force secretary: Hegseth’s Pentagon ‘dysfunctional’

 https://thehill.com/policy/defense/6068287-former-air-force-secretary-hegeseths-pentagon-dysfunctional/

CNN’s Kaitlan Collins asked Kendall, who served under the Biden and Obama administrations, for his assessment of Hegseth’s handling of the military and the Pentagon. The former secretary accused the Pentagon chief of doing “active harm” to the department.

“In a word, it’s dysfunctional,” Kendall continued. “I’ve worked with and had a chance to work for maybe a dozen secretaries of Defense. He’s doing active harm to the Department of Defense. It’s not passive. It’s active harm.”

The ex-official said the “enormous damage” to the department will take several years “or decades to go repair this and restore the type of system that we have had traditionally.”