He insists that the image of Ukraine as a hotbed of antisemitism is absurd.
“I don’t practice, but still everyone knows I am Jewish — I have such a Jewish face! And I never experienced antisemitism from Ukrainians,” he insisted. “The military guys I am working with now really don’t care that I am a Jew.”
He does not have similar feelings toward his Russian neighbors. “I did have a Jew-hating Russian first-grade teacher who mockingly called my long hair payos,” recalled Batozky, using the Hebrew term for the long side curls kept by many Hasidic men. And he said he heard more slurs against Jews from Russians Moscow State University, which he attended in the 1990s, then he ever heard back home.
Oooh sorry, he probably hasn't heard of the Azov Battalion
ReplyDeletehttps://www.elciudadano.com/en/ukraine-the-story-of-the-neo-nazi-battalion-azov/03/03/
And yes, these guy are Nazis.
https://consortiumnews.com/2022/03/04/how-zelensky-made-peace-with-neo-nazis/
Zelensky, who once said that his Jewish origin is pretty much irrelevant to him, has been trying to rope Israel into this war since it started. His most egregious moment was claiming Babi Yar had been bombed and then continuing to refer to it even after the ruse was revealed.
This war is like rapid dogs fighting with cobras. Pick a side, sure, but don't pretend there's virtue there
All this talk about Nazis is a side-show. Bottom line: Vladimir Putin now owns the Ukraine. In the process of cementing his hold over it, he wrecked it. And along the way he trashed the Russian economy. But it is still his.
ReplyDeleteYes Russian planes, helicopters, and tanks are being destroyed by Ukrainians and/or because of maintenance issues and a poorly trained military. The military staff did not plan the invasion well. Logistical support for the Russian army is almost non-existent due to that poor planning or attacks on convoys.
But so what? Russia has no other hostilities where it needs to send soldiers and equipment. There is only one war front. And the war is like a military exercise for Russia showing it where it needs to improve.
Meanwhile, the Ukrainian army in the Ukraine shrinks by one for every soldier killed or injured. Compare that with the Russians: for every casualty they can bring in another soldier.
Those Ukrainians who are displaced within the Ukraine or made it out aren't returning home anytime soon.
There is all out war right on the doorstep of the European Union and you have the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff who visits right near the conflict as the U.S. encourages Poland to send over airplanes for the Ukrainian military.
We are only a few steps removed from a world war between American andRussia; and witha China, too, who might jump in and take Taiwan if American stands by as Ukraine falls.
I have the solution to all this, by the way. Attack Donald Trump and lay the blame on him.
You're welcome.
They have ongoing wars in Syria and Chechnya .
ReplyDeleteUSSR held on to Afghanistan for a decade, same problems, same stingers caused their downfall.
once saw a cat fighting a cobra like snake. Cat won and walked off with it's dinner. But then again it was an Israeli cat.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't seem to be a whole lot happening in Chechen at the moment as far as open hostilities. Syria was mainly an aerial war. And giving Stingers to Afghans battling the Russians was a lot easier than it will be to give to Ukrainian insurgents since Russia, meaning Vladimir Putin, may interpret gifts of Stingers as an attack by the U.S./NATO as a whole on Russia.
ReplyDeleteWow killing thousands of civilians and threatening atomic war is correcting an immoral world!?
ReplyDeleteThe war is very reminiscent of the Aghanistan Invasion (Brezhnev) and the playbook is the same. America/nato supplies stingers and anti-tank missiles, no direct fighting between NATO and USSR, and now it seems, no Polish jets will be introduced. Puting understands the rule book, that is why he keeps warning the West not to get directy involved.
ReplyDeleteIn which case, it may turn out to be a quagmire for russia, they will lose 50,000 - 100,000 personnel, like they did in Afghanistan, and then withdraw, and hopefully a regime change too.
The West is currently in the grip of the Woke Folk and their ecofascist ideology. Know why Germany won't ban Russian fuel imports? Because the Woke Folk convinced them not only to stop using coal based electricity plants but also to turn off their nuclear plants, despite those not producing any dreaded carbon. They insisted Germany switch to wind and water based powers which are unreliable and fall short of the country's needs. So what to do? Intelligent people would say 'Screw the Woke Folk, turn on the nuclear plants at the least and as many coal plants as necessary to ensure we have enough power' but no, Germany has essentially announced they will not do that but will instead import Russian oil and gas. They are hostages to Putin because of their desire for eco-virtue.
ReplyDeleteUnder Trump the US achieved energy independence. The first thing Biden did was end that and restore dependence on Arab and Russian oil, while again pretending to be green by shutting down domestic production and pipelines. Because apparently foreign oil and gas doesn't produce carbon, only domestic sources do.
So if this war give intelligent people the ability to stand up to the Woke Folk and shove them back into the closer where they belong, some good will have come of it.
The world has become reliant on Russian Fuel supplies, and have ignored their own, eg North Sea oil, fracking (shale gas), and even the Israeli pipeline for Europe which was culled by Bin Biden.
ReplyDeleteNo need for poor Aryan germans to freeze to death, it's better for some Slavs in the Ukraine to suffer than us full members of Nato.
Could be!
ReplyDeleteIf that is what it takes. Other world wars involved much carnage, too, in all theaters.
ReplyDeleteI can believe it. Cats are unbelievably quick and agile. If Ukraine can be cat-like: lying in wait, operating under cover of yhe natural environment and darkness, and striking without warning, they might pull off a stalemate.
ReplyDeleteI sense you are being sarcastic, KH.
ReplyDeleteBut seriously, one can't have it both ways. Ukrainians say they are fighting for an EU-style democracy. But your typical EU-style politician is sensitive to the fact that Western democracies are morally valueless to some extent and that if an elected official wants to hold onto his or her office they better be responsive to people's basic needs like keeping the fuel lines open and fuel costs down.
Vladimir Putin has no such concerns. But then again, Russia is not an EU-style democracy.
yes, I am being sarcastic -
ReplyDeleteI don't want top ya more for gasoline so that Chielmnecki's statue can be honored by the descendants of cossacks who murdered etc half a million Jews.
Russians are not Tzaddikim either, but at least they have taken down Stalin's statues
They don't need cat like reflex, just for the ground to get a little muddier.
ReplyDeleteSo if Russia win you view it as a victory against a monster who died a long time ago
ReplyDeleteTorah thought this week’s parsha ויקרא “When a person sins and commits a trespass against the Lord by dealing deceitfully with his fellow in the matter of deposit, or of pledge, or through robbery, or by defrauding his fellow,” (Leviticus 5:21).
ReplyDeleteויקרא פרשת ויקרא פרק ה פסוק כא
נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיקֹוָק וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל אוֹ עָשַׁק אֶת עֲמִיתוֹ
רש"י ויקרא פרשת ויקרא פרק ה פסוק כא
אמר ר' עקיבא מה תלמוד לומר ומעלה מעל בה', לפי שכל המלוה והלוה והנושא והנותן אינו עושה אלא בעדים ובשטר, לפיכך בזמן שהוא מכחש מכחש בעדים ובשטר, אבל המפקיד אצל חברו אינו רוצה שתדע בו נשמה אלא שלישי שביניהם, לפיכך כשהוא מכחש, מכחש בשלישי שביניהם: בתשומת יד - ששם בידו ממון להתעסק או במלוה:
Kiddushin 52
“An objection is raised: If one betroths a woman with an article of robbery, violence, or theft [an article of robbery is one stolen by violence; theft denotes stolen in secret; violence, an article forcibly taken from its owner and paid for], or if he snatches a sela out of her hand and betroths her therewith, she is betrothed? There it refers to her own robbery [i.e., he robbed her, cf. p. 262, n. 7: the argument rejected there is admitted here]. But since the second clause teaches or if he snatches a sela out of her hand, it follows that the first clause refers to robbery in general? It is an explanation. If one betroths a woman with robbery. How so? If he snatches an article out of her hand and betroths her therewith. But our Mishnah [deals with] her own robbery [since it states IT WAS THEIRS], yet Rab said: She is not betrothed? There is no difficulty: in the one case, he had [previously] negotiated [with her for marriage] [she accepts it as kiddushin, and thereby it ceases to be robbery, as explained.]; in the other, he had not negotiated”
Such stirring words from Yulia Tymoshenko, spoke to i24NEWS on Wednesday to discuss the ongoing war in her country https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/323648.
Putin is sinning and committing a trespass against the Lord. Putin wants Yulia Tymoshenko to agree to Putin’s robbery and violence.
Ukraine is just a client state of the West, doing our dirty work, with weapons we donated to them. USA is just testing Russia S military preparedness.
ReplyDeleteRussia will not win, perhaps they hold on to some territory and withdraw in exchange for lifting of sanctions.
When they have the floods in Germany I don't mourn for them whereas in Australia I do feel sympathy.
it was not a single monster, but lots of them, and this continued right until the WW2 atrocities
ReplyDeleteWow you disagree with Putin!?
ReplyDeleteYour sympathy or lack of it is earth shattering!
I'm not even ashkenazi, and you are...
ReplyDelete"sympathy"
ReplyDeleteRemember what Amalek
did to you on your journey out of Egypt, how they surprised you on the
road and cut off all the weak people at your rear, when you were parched
and weary [from the journey], and they did not fear [retribution from] G‑d [for hurting you].
-- Devarim 25:17
Classic Questions
How often does one have to remember "what Amalek did to you"? (v. 17)
Rambam:
It is a positive command to constantly remember their evil deeds and
ambush, to arouse hatred for them, as the verse states, "Remember what
Amalek did to you" (v.17). According to Oral Tradition we are taught:
"'Remember'—with your mouths; 'Do not forget' (v. 19)—in your hearts,"
for it is forbidden to forget the hatred we have for them (Laws of Kings 5:5).
https://www.chabad.org/parshah/article_cdo/aid/704644/jewish/Remember-What-Amalek-Did-to-You.htm
I guess we have different Torah - Ukraine , Russia, Poland and Germany are not mentioned
ReplyDeleteBut glad to see you are getting ready for Ourim
SO forget Haman, because he was Persian and not mentioned there either
ReplyDeleteNope Haman wa a descendant of Amalek
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haman
Haman (Hebrew: הָמָן Hāmān; also known as Haman the Agagite or Haman the evil) is the main antagonist in the Book of Esther, who according to the Hebrew Bible was a grand vizier in the Persian empire under King Ahasuerus, commonly identified as Xerxes I (died 465 BCE) but traditionally equated with Artaxerxes I or Artaxerxes II.[1] As his epithet Agagite indicates, Haman was a descendant of Agag, the king of the Amalekites.
so since there is no official lineage, the mitzvah no longer applies?
ReplyDeleteTorah thought daf hayomi
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 9b
“Did not, however, Rab Judah state in the name of Rab, and R. Hiyya also taught: In the case of all these [The fifteen forbidden categories enumerated in our Mishnah, supra 2af.] it may happen that she who is forbidden to one brother may be permitted to the other [Infra 18b] while she who is forbidden to the other brother may be permitted to the one, and that her sister who is her sister-in-law may be subject either to halizah or to the levirate marriage [for full explanation of this statement V. infra 26a and 28b]. And Rab Judah interpreted [it [Rab's statement] as referring to those [forbidden categories]] from one's MOTHER-IN-LAW onwards but not to the first six categories. What is the reason? Because in the case of a daughter this [The full application of Rab's statement] is possible only [with one born] from a woman who had been outraged but not [with one born] from a legal marriage [who would be forbidden to all the brothers], [and the author of our Mishnah] deals only with cases of legal matrimony and not with those of outraged women [and since the case of a daughter could not be included, the other five cases also, bearing on a daughter, were excluded]. And Abaye interpreted it [Rab's statement] [as referring] also to a daughter from a woman who had been out raged, because, since [the application of Rab's statement] is quite possible in her case, it matters not whether she was born from a woman who was legally married or from one that had been outraged; but not to the wife of a brother who was not his contemporary. What is the reason? Because [the application of Rab's statement in this case] is possible only according to the view of R. Simeon and not according to that of the Rabbis, [the author of our Mishnah] does not deal with any matter which is in dispute.”
My theory. Wow. According to the Talmud a man has sex with a Jewish woman without marriage according to the law of Moses, this is an outraged woman. The offspring of the outraged woman may actually marry according to the laws of Moses to any Jew including brothers and sisters of the offspring. Why? The forbidden marriages listed in Leviticus 18 and their penalties in Leviticus 20 refer only to marriages according to the law of Moses. Beautiful.
This explains why only “The fifteen forbidden categories enumerated in our Mishnah, supra 2af.” The codifiers of the Mishana wisely left out bad women which a man should not marry such as the adulteress and the divorcee who remarried her first husband. This was an earlier point in daf hayomi. Bad women make for a red herring, a false claim to change the subject. Marriages a man with a bad woman the marriages are valid. Hertz Chumash p. 488: “Impurity in marriage, incestuous promiscuity among near relations. And other abominations are unpardonable sins, blighting the land and its inhabitants with defilement.” Follow KA, IsraelReader, JoeOrlow, Garnel ?
The 1st Mishnah in Yevamoth is on cancelling the yeeboom obligation to women who may be perfectly righteous. “When brethren dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no son ובן אין לו, the wife of the deceased shall not be married outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unit with her יבא עליה: he shall take her as his wife ולקחה לו לאשה and perform the levir’s duty ויבמה.” (Deuteronomy 25:5).
Looks like Putin invading Ukraine is blocking a horrible Iran deal: horrible for Israel and the US and all good people. Purim is here.
Daf hayomi Yevamoth 10b
ReplyDelete“R. Johanan pointed out to Resh Lakish the following objection: If a levir who submitted to halizah from his sister-in-law, later betrothed her and died [without issue], [the widow] requires halizah from the surviving brothers. Now, according to me who maintains that [the surviving brothers] [in subsequently marrying the haluzah] are subject to the penalties of a negative precept only, one can well understand why she requires halizah from the other brothers [Since the negative precept which bars them from the levirate marriage does not supersede halizah]. According to you, however, why should she require halizah [Marriage with them would involve the penalty of kareth, and whenever such a penalty is involved the parties are not subject to the laws of halizah!]? Explain, then, on the lines of your reasoning, the final clause, If one of the brothers [other than the one who participated in the halizah] actually [lit., stood] betrothed her, she has no claim upon him [i.e., the betrothal is invalid, she receives no kethubah, and no divorce is needed. This obviously proves that the penalty for such an ensuing marriage is kareth, as Resh Lakish maintains; for had it been, as R. Johanan asserts, that of a negative precept only, the betrothal should have been valid]! R. Shesheth replied: The final clause represents the opinion of R. Akiba who holds that a betrothal with those who are subject thereby to the penalties of a negative precept is of no validity [Keth. 29b, Kid. 64a, 68a, Sot. 18b, infra 52b, 69a]. Should it not then have been stated, according to the view of R. Akiba she [so Bah, a.l. Cur. edd., he] has no claim upon him [since it is the general opinion that such a betrothal is valid]”
My theory. Wow the respect for Rabbi Akiba. In the midrash Rabbi Akiba was the rabbi of Bnei Brak and a descendant of Haman. Rabbi Akiva holds that marriage with those who are subject to the penalties of a negative precept and not listed in forbidden marriages in Leviticus 18 and 20 is of no validity and no get is required. The offspring is a mamzer. This is not the accepted halacha.
Today reform Jews support same sex marriage and such. Horrible.
Today we see a humanitarian crisis: people in Ukraine without water, food, heat, medical care trying to live or to escape. Proverbs on two dogs fighting does not apply “A passerby who gets embroiled in someone else’s quarrel Is like one who seizes a dog by its ears.” (Proverbs 26:17). We must do all we can to ease the humanitarian crisis in the Ukraine.
Daf hayomi Yevamoth 11b
ReplyDelete“R. Hiyya b. Abba said: R. Johanan inquired as to what is the law [in respect of the levirate marriage] in regard to a rival of a divorced woman whom her former husband remarried after her second marriage. Said R. Ammi to him: Enquire rather regarding herself [the remarried woman]! Concerning herself I have no question since her case may be inferred a minori ad majus: If she is forbidden to him [her first husband] to whom she was originally [before she married her second husband] permitted, how much more so to the man [the levir] to whom she was originally [before she married her second husband] forbidden [as brother's wife]! The question, however, remains concerning her rival: Is the inference a minori ad majus strong enough to exclude a rival [from the levirate marriage] or not?”
My theory. Rivals of forbidden marriages are also forbidden in a levirate marriage, based on:
“Do not marry a woman as a rival לצרר to her sister and uncover her nakedness in the other’s lifetime עליה בחייה.” (Leviticus 18:18)
ויקרא פרשת אחרי מות פרק יח פסוק יח
וְאִשָּׁה אֶל אֲחֹתָהּ לֹא תִקָּח לִצְרֹר לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ עָלֶיהָ בְּחַיֶּיהָ:
רש"י ויקרא פרשת אחרי מות פרק יח פסוק יח
אל אחתה - שתיהן כאחת:
לצרר - לשון צרה לעשות את זו צרה לזו:
בחייה - למדך שאם גרשה לא ישא את אחותה כל זמן שהיא בחיים:
Hertz Chumash p. 491: “to be a rival to her. Better, as a fellow-wife. Sisterly love would thereby turn to rivalry and hatred.”
What fine wording: Do not marry a woman as a rival לצרר to her sister. Rivals are forbidden in the forbidden marriages of Leviticus 18 and 20, as a Torah law. Whether rivals are forbidden in other forbidden marriages, not listed in Leviticus 18 and 20, is open to debate. Interesting debate. The evil inclination would be strong for a man to take back a wife he divorced and she married another.
May I tell a joke? An Indian village hundreds of years ago in the US, a little boy complains to his mother: Ma, I don’t like my name, all my friends have nice names. The mother tells him: in our village the witch doctor gives all the names. Go see him. The boy goes to the witch doctor. The witch doctor explains that when a baby is born, mazel tov, he goes out to the field and looks about for inspiration for giving a name. He sees a sparrow: Flying Sparrow. He sees clouds: High Cloud etc. He says to the boy: are you following me, TwoDogs...”
Torah thought Daf Hayomi Yevamoth 13
ReplyDelete“Beth Shammai permit the rivals [in respect of the levirate marriage] to the surviving brothers, and Beth Hillel prohibit them. If they [the rivals] perform the halizah [with the brothers], Beth Shammai declare them ineligible to marry a priest [In the opinion of Beth Shammai the halizah is legal and any woman who performed legal halizah is, like one divorced, forbidden to marry a priest], and Beth Hillel declare them to be eligible [in their opinion the halizah was unnecessary and may, therefore, be treated as if it had never taken place]. If they were married to the levirs, Beth Shammai declare them eligible [to marry a priest] [when their husbands die], and Beth Hillel declare them ineligible [because having married persons to whom they are forbidden they are regarded as harlots who are ineligible ever to marry a priest]. though these forbade what the others permitted, and these regarded as ineligible what the others declared eligible, Beth Shammai, nevertheless, did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel [refrain from marrying women] from [the families of] Beth Shammai. [similarly, in respect of] all [questions of ritual] cleanness and uncleanness, which these declared clean where the others declared unclean, neither of them abstained from using the utensils of the others for the preparation of food that was ritually clean [lit., do clean things, these upon these].”
I like here Beth Hillel strict not allowing certain ladies from marrying a Kohen. I’m a Kohen. I bless every day in Bnei Brak in my shul. I knew a lovey religious couple with children in Brooklyn that, reportedly, the husband, a Kohen, married again his wife after divorcing her. This violates “They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God; for they offer the Lord’s offerings by fire, the food of their God, and so must be holy. They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, or profaned; nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God and must treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you; for I the Lord, who sanctify you am holy. When the daughter of any priest defiles herself through harlotry, it is her father whom she defiles, she shall be put to the fire.” (Leviticus 21:6-9)
Hertz Chumash p. 514: “burnt with fire. The Talmud maintains that the penalty of burning (see on xx, 14) was inflictd only if the priest’s daughter became unchaste when betrothed or married---a crime which was in al cases considered a capital offense.”
Torah thought Daf Hayomi:
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 15b:
“Come and hear: R. Joshua was asked, What is the law in relation to the rival of one's daughter? He answered them, It is a question in dispute between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel. But [he was asked] in accordance with whose ruling is the established law? Why should you, he said to them, put my head between two great mountains, between two great groups of disputants, aye, between Beth Shammai and Beth Hillel? I fear they might crush my head! I may testify to you, however, concerning two great families who flourished in Jerusalem, namely, the family of Beth Zebo'im of Ben Akmai and the family of Ben Kuppai of Ben Mekoshesh [a locality in Judaea; on the identification of the other names, v. Klein MGWJ 1910, 25ff, and 1917, 135ff and Buchler Priester, p. 186.], that they were descendants of rivals [who, in accordance with the ruling of Beth Hillel, married strangers without previously performing halizah with the levirs] and yet some of them were High Priests who ministered upon the altar.”
My theory. A and B are brothers. B dies without offspring leaving 2 wives D and C: a wife D and a rival C. B dies without offspring all his surviving wives, D and C, normally, yeebom or halizah to one of them. If one of the surviving wives D and C is a daughter-in-law to A ---Bet Hillel says surviving wives D and C do nothing, no yeebom no halizah and can marry anyone they want other than A or other surviving brothers of B.
Are you with me Garnel and KA and JoeOrlow? Bet Shammai says a rival C needs a Halizah. But after Halozah she cannot marry a Kohen. R. Joshua tells of two great Kohen families that famously surviving rivals married other Kohen without halizah in accordance with Bet Hillel and contrary to bet Shammai. Kohen men are scrupulous never to marry a woman who had halizah in keeping with:
“They shall be holy to their God and not profane the name of their God; for they offer the Lord’s offerings by fire, the food of their God, and so must be holy. They shall not marry a woman defiled by harlotry, or profaned; nor shall they marry one divorced from her husband. For they are holy to their God and must treat them as holy, since they offer the food of your God; they shall be holy to you; for I the Lord, who sanctify you am holy. When the daughter of any priest defiles herself through harlotry, it is her father whom she defiles, she shall be put to the fire.” (Leviticus 21:6-9).
Interesting complicated Talmudic discussion, with all due respect to Bet Shammai, the esteemed minority view not halacha. What would Bet Shammai say? Today I’ll be getting SCOTUS ruling on my petition 21-6561.
Torah thought daf hayomi
ReplyDeleteYevamoth 17a
“Others read: When I mentioned the matter [of R. Assi's ruling supra 16b] in the presence of Samuel he said to me, They did not move from there until they had declared them [the ten tribes] to be perfect heathens; as it is said in the Scriptures, “[Because] they have broken faith with, because they have begotten alien children, therefore the new moon shall devour their portion.” (Hosea 5:7).
הושע פרק ה פסוק ז
בַּיקֹוָק בָּגָדוּ כִּי בָנִים זָרִים יָלָדוּ עַתָּה יֹאכְלֵם חֹדֶשׁ אֶת חֶלְקֵיהֶם:
רש"י הושע פרק ה פסוק ז
בנים זרי' ילדו - שנתחתנו עם עכו"ם: יאכלם חדש - חדש אב:
My theory. Severe warning against intermarriage. “You shall not intermarry with them: do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons. For they will turn your children away from Me to worship other gods, and the Lord’s anger will blaze forth against you, and He will promptly wipe you out.” (Deuteronomy 7:3-4).
דברים פרשת ואתחנן פרק ז פסוק ד
כִּי יָסִיר אֶת בִּנְךָ מֵאַחֲרַי וְעָבְדוּ אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים וְחָרָה אַף יְקֹוָק בָּכֶם וְהִשְׁמִידְךָ מַהֵר:
רש"י דברים פרשת ואתחנן פרק ז פסוק ד
כי יסיר את בנך מאחרי - בנו של גוי כשישא את בתך יסיר את בנך אשר תלד לו בתך מאחרי. למדנו שבן בתך הבא מן הגוי קרוי בנך,י אבל בן בנך הבא מן הגויה אינו קרוי בנך אלא בנה, שהרי לא נאמר על בתו לא תקח כי תסיר את בנך מאחרי, אלא כי יסיר את בנך וגו':
Hertz Chumash p. 774: “The evil results of such marriages were perceived by the Patriarchs; Gen. xxiv and xxviii. Moses had previously warned the people against allying themselves by marriage with their neighbors (Exod. xxxiv, 16), and the warning was repeated by his successor (Josh. xxiii, 12).”
Update on me SCOTUS 21-6561: Mar 21 2022 Motion for reconsideration of order denying leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed by petitioner DENIED.