https://www.jfeed.com/news-israel/teen-suicide-jerusalem-rally
Tragic news from Jerusalem: A 20-year-old Haredi (Chabad) man, Menachem Mendel Litzman, fell to his death from a construction site during the Million Man rally. Authorities say the fall was suicide, following a farewell note he left for friends.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“This Was His Last Social Media Post:” No. My theory. A terrorist jihadist murdered the 20 year old Chabad fellow. How? Pushed him off a height and then generated with AI a fake suicide note in the victim’s handwriting. March 2024 a terrorist jihadist rear-ended me in a speedy electric car while I riding my Kawasaki 500 bike on Route 4 to the UPS at the airport, exactly at the turnoff to Tel Aviv. Yes Birchas Gomel and blessing God a miracle for me. I make that blessing every time I and my wife ride
ReplyDeleteToday’s Israelnationalnews: A 14-year-old resident of Jaffa was arrested in Ramallah on suspicion of coordinating with ISIS and Hamas terrorists, documenting sensitive sites in Israel and even attempting to prepare explosive materials.
Also Rochel Sylvetsky reports today in Israelnationalnews real blinding acid thrown on her face that sent her to the hospital. Why? Doesn’t everybody love Rochel Sylvetsky? I do. I’m a registered Republican and I voted (along with my 3 daughters from my current wife in Bnei Brak) three time for Trump.
Allow me Today’s daf hayomi.Tractate Zevachim 43a:
The Gemara raises a difficulty: But this halakha too, Ulla already said it on another occasion. As Ulla says: The mishna taught that items that descended from the altar shall not ascend again only where the fire has not taken hold of them, but where the fire has already taken hold of them, they shall ascend. The Gemara explains: Even so, there is a novelty in Ulla’s ruling: Lest you say that this matter applies only to a limb of an offering, which is all connected together so that it forms a single unit, and one can say that if fire took hold of part of it, all of it is considered the food of the altar, and therefore it is returned to the altar if it came down; but with regard to a handful, which consists of separate pieces, perhaps only the part that the fire took hold of is returned to the altar, but as for the rest you might say that it does not ascend again. Therefore, Ulla teaches us that the same halakha applies to the handful as to a limb, i.e., if it descended from the altar after fire already took hold of any part of it, it ascends once again in its entirety to the altar.
Beautiful. A limb fell off the altar, may it be put back on the Altar? Yes, if fire already took hold of any part of it. We pray no one falls to their death.
Daf hayomi today Tractate Zevachim 45b
ReplyDeleteRav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said to Rav Pappa: If that is so, with regard to the verse discussing ritually impure priests and consecrated items: “That they separate themselves from the sacred items of the children of Israel, which they consecrate to Me” (Leviticus 22:2), so too, would Rabbi Yosei say that the prohibition against eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity applies only to offerings which they, the Jews, consecrate, and not to those of gentiles? This cannot be, as Rabbi Yosei explicitly states in the baraita that in this regard the offerings of gentiles are like those of Jews. Rather, Rav Ashi says that it is not from the words “for them” that one derives that the offering of a gentile is not accepted when the blood that was sprinkled had become impure. Rather, it is because the atonement achieved by way of the High Priest’s frontplate does not apply to gentiles, as the verse states: “That it may be accepted for them before the Lord” (Exodus 28:38), and gentiles are not subject to the acceptance of offerings.
Beautiful. Does not apply to gentiles the atonement of the High Priest frontplate, Yet per Rabbi Yosei gentiles have no prohibition of eating consecrated items in a state of ritual impurity.
ReplyDeleteDaf Hayomi today Tractate Zevachim 46b
One says that Rabbi Shimon’s dispute with the Rabbis is with regard to the impurity of the body, as he maintains that an impure individual who eats wood or frankincense is exempt. But with regard to the impurity of flesh, i.e., these items themselves, everyone agrees that one is flogged. And one says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case, i.e., Rabbi Shimon holds that one is exempt in both cases. Rava said: It stands to reason that the correct interpretation is like the one who says: As there is a dispute with regard to this case, so is there a dispute with regard to that case. What is the reason? Since one does not read with regard to these inedible items: “Having his impurity upon him, that soul shall be cut off,” as according to both alternative explanations Rabbi Shimon deems exempt one who eats these items when he is in a state of impurity, similarly one does not read with regard to them the previous verse: “And the flesh that touches any impure item shall not be eaten.”
Beautiful. My theory. The punishments: karet, flogging, death by Heaven, stoning etc God set up in the Torah and in our Sages, to help us mortals fight off the Evil Temptor, Yezer Harah, Satan (in Job 1:7 And the LORD said unto Satan: ‘Whence comest thou?’ Then Satan answered the LORD, and said: ‘From going to and fro in the earth, and from walking up and down in it.’). Rabbi Shimon maintains that the transgressor who eats forbidden wood or frankincense that was kadosh or whether the eater was tamei, whatever, is exempts from flogging and from his soul shall be cut off. Common sense: Inedible items, no floggings and no cut off.
ReplyDeleteMay I update on my case Aranoff v Aranoff? Saturday night I received: New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct Complaint + Acknowledgment File No. 2025/N-1553. I write today UPS to NYS Court of Appeals, AD2, TIAA, Conduct, Susan: Wow Judge Prus awarded Susan in Transcript August 1, 2013 whole house without any rationale probable justification due process whatever---a clear violation of NYS Constitution \S12. Prus knew well of $10,000 +$10,000 + $5,000 unpaid sanctions against me. No, I have no unpaid child support. I owe Susan no unpaid interest on arrears to Susan. Judge Prus knew well last face-to-face, me and Susan, October 1992. Wow I was happy to get Exhibit A: New York State Commission on Judicial Conduct Complaint + Acknowledgment File No.\ 2025/N-1553.”
ReplyDeleteDaf Hayomi today Tractate Zevachim 47a:
The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (Ḥullin 38b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, his slaughter is valid and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew. The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored, and therefore people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit for storage by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it.
Beautiful. I support Rabbi Eliezer’s view. Jew or non-Jew asks a Jew to slaughter an animal for him, the Jew should first ascertain what are the Jew or non-Jew’s thoughts and intentions behind the request. Today voting in USA latest in our war: what are thoughts and intentions throughout the world? Dear God in Heavan, Please show us Grace and Mercy.