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.
Oh no, Mamdani mayor of NYC. I made Aliya July 8, 1991 from Brooklyn. Crime in NYC was so bad, yet NYC got better with Guiliani 1993 and 1997 mayor of NYC and also with Bloomberg mayor of NYC in the 2000s.
ReplyDeleteToday’s daf hayomi Tractate Zevachim 48a:
The Gemara asks: This works out well according to one who holds that there is a derivation from the word “law,” but according to the one who does not hold that there is a derivation from the word “law,” from where does he learn that all guilt offerings must have the same minimum value? The Gemara answers: He learns it from a verbal analogy between the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:15) and the term “according to your valuation” stated with regard to a provisional guilt offering (Leviticus 5:18) and a guilt offering for robbery (Leviticus 5:25). The Gemara asks: This works out well concerning guilt offerings where it is written “according to your valuation,” but with regard to a guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant, concerning which it is not written in the Torah “according to your valuation,” what is there to say? How does one derive that the guilt offering brought for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant must be worth a minimum of two silver shekels? The Gemara answers that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the term “with the ram” stated with regard to a guilt offering for misuse of consecrated property (Leviticus 5:16) and the term “with the ram” stated with regard to the guilt offering for engaging in sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant (Leviticus 19:22).
Beautiful. Guilt offerings, we seek God’s forgiveness/atonement in specified cases and conditions etc must have a specified minimum value. Wow, such a grievous sin, a man sexual intercourse with an espoused maidservant: adultery! My feeling is that this bad man should be flogged whatever and no atonement. Too easy for a bad man to rape a servant girl, the lowest in society. No. God does provide atonement---thank you God, we all need atonement for our sins and sins of our fathers. Those who don’t make aliya when they could, is that a sin? Over and over in the book I’m reading, The Emperor of Lies, the Jews of the Lodz ghetto regret not making aliya when they had a chance. I call all USA (Europe etc) Jews make Aliya now.
Allow me my UPS letter re Aranoff v Aranoff yesterday:
ReplyDelete3. My last decision from the NYS Court of Appeals April 17, 2025:
Mo. No. 2025-123 Susan Aranoff, Respondent, v.\ Gerald Aranoff, Appellant.
Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the order sought to be appealed from does not finally determine the action within the meaning of the Constitution.
4. The NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct acknowledged my complaint and gave me number: 2025/N-1553. Their focus is whether there is enough evidence of Judicial misconduct against Judge Prus. This is surely a complicated and difficult question. Judge Prus awarded the house and 55\% of my TIAA pension essentially forever in his 2013 contested civil divorce Aranoff v Aranoff and related documents. Extremely rare in NYS divorce fraud cases. QDROs are never overturned after TIAA and a NYS judge approval. My fear is that the NYS Court of Appeals and AD2 will want to wait until the NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct will render a decision, which they may never. Not fair and not common sense, I seek now immediately a NYS court order for TIAA to me 100% of my pension.
5. Wow Mandani won the election mayor of NYC. I made Aliyah July 8, 1991 after years of high crime in NYC. Crime in NYC was greatly reduced under Guiliani 1993 and 1997 and Bloomberg mayor in the 2000s. I'm reading a novel of Jews in Poland Lodz ghetto 1938-1945, The Emperor of Lies. Repeatedly the suffering starving Jews in this historial fiction regret not making Aliya to Israel when they had the chance. I call Susan, my dear ex-wife to make Aliya to Israel and bring all our six children, spouses and grandchildren. I never abandoned Susan; certainly never abandoned my children from Susan.
Daf Hayomi today Tractate Zevachim 52b
ReplyDeleteAccordingly, it is possible to say that if one placed them below the red line they are valid. The baraita concludes: To counter this reasoning, the verse states with regard to an animal sin offering that is sacrificed outside: “The priest that sacrifices it for sin shall eat it” (Leviticus 6:19), to emphasize that it, the offering whose blood was placed correctly, above the red line of the altar, is valid, and the priest may eat the meat. But this is not so for an offering whose blood was placed below the red line, which is disqualified.
Beautiful. The Torah specifies that the Kohain applies blood of the sin offering on the four horns on the Altar. The Gamara asks is it possible to say that if the Kohain applied the blood below the red line, the sin offering is valid? No: The Gamara says that the Kohain may eat the meat of the sin offering only if the blood was correctly applied, above the red line of the Altar. We pray for the Full Redemption and the Rebuilding of the Holy Temple and offering sacrifices as God commands us in Leviticus.
Allow me my UPS submission to 5 parties today:
5. All 5 (Susan, TIAA, AD2, NYS Court of Appeals, and NYS Commission on Judicial Conduct) are required and do accept all my UPS submissions. Why? Because no closure of Aranoff v Aranoff in a legal sense. The NYS Court of Appeals is required to do return to sender for submissions on closed cases. I get no return to sender from anyone. TIAA in under bankruptcy proceedings whatever and do acknowledge my UPS letters but nothing more.
6. I see on the web concerning 498 East 18 Street Brooklyn NY 11226: NOT LISTED FOR SALE 498 E 18th St Brooklyn, NY 11226 Ditmas Park Neighborhood Estimated Value: $1,809,000 - $3,352,000. With no closure Aranoff v Aranoff Susan can's make Aliya now and bring our six children their spouses. Wow the house is worth $3,000,000 house and she has to live there and get my mail and UPS.
7. I seek closure of Aranoff v Aranoff. I seek 100% my TIAA pension. I'm prepared to waive (cancel/nullify whatever) all my rights to the house and to the retroactive TIAA payments of 55% of my pension to Susan. Susan and TIAA can prepare documents for my signature and notary (if necessary) and I'll sign. Wow AD2 should cancel the $25,000 unpaid fines against me ($10,000 Rigler/Rothbart + $10,000 Rigler/Rothbart + $5,000 Garson/Rothbart).
Allow me \P 3 and 4 my UPS submission to 5 parties today;
ReplyDelete3. Some context in Aranoff v Aranoff. Susan signed Aliya papers in 1989 to live with me in Jerusalem. I made Aliya July 8, 1991 without Susan and without our 6 under-aged children: Rachel, Yaffa, Deena, Tsvi, Aryea, and Miriam. I made a court appearance September 1992 before Rigler/Rothbart. The late Judge Rigler signed an undated memorandum late 1992 (my estimate). TIAA has been paying Susan 55% of my TIAA pension from early 1994 with no end insight (in apparent direct violation of ERISA). TIAA approved QDROs on Aranoff v Aranoff and on Judge Prus ruling in 2013 NYS contested Civil Divorce and in the Inquest August 1, 2013 and documents. Today I have on public view Supreme Court of the USA:
a) Docket for 20-6525
b) Docket for 18-9390
c) Docket for 18-7160
d) Docket for 20-7892
e) Docket for 20-8096
f) Docket for 21-6561
4. NYS Court rules state:
\S 500.6 Developments Affecting Appeals, Certified Questions, Motions and Criminal Leave Applications.
Counsel shall timely inform the Clerk's Office and each other party by letter of all developments…
\S 500.7 Post-Briefing, Post-Submission and Post-Argument Communications.
Except for communications providing the information required by section 500.6 of this Part or those specifically requested by the Court, post-briefing, post-submission and post-argument written communications to the Court are not favored, and shall be returned to the sender unless accepted by the Clerk of the Court following a written request with a copy of the proposed submission and proof of service of one copy on each other party.
Allow me to ask
DeleteWhat made you leave your wife and children behind to go on Aliyah? Didn't you love being with your family?
Rabbi Solomon Kornfeld, a"h, persuaded me. I still have his handwritten letter to Susan telling her not to abandon me etc. He actually permitted Susan to run a ladies only Shabbat service in a room in his shul. Thanks for asking.
Delete