https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/428223
For the Iranian regime, the purpose of negotiations is to force America to surrender.
In an article in Foreign Affairs, two pro-Islamic regime analysts, Narges Bajoghli and Vali Nasr, gloat over what they see as an Iranian victory over America. They write: “The war has given rise to a new Iran, one that will reshape the [Middle East] and influence the course of geopolitics for years to come."
No surprise there: the pattern has set in of Trump making bellicose statements, Iran dangling concessions, Trump backing off, Iran repackaging those concessions as further threats and demands, Iran renewing its attacks and America declaring that negotiations are resuming.
Trump could have used Israel as leverage to weaken Iran by crippling Hezbollah. Instead, by holding Israel back from delivering the decisive blow against Iran’s proxy army, he has enabled Iran to use Hezbollah as leverage against Israel.
Behind Trump’s strategic errors, however, lies a more profound-and profoundly worrying-issue. The Iran war is deeply unpopular with the American people. In part, that’s because Trump has never made the case to them that it’s being waged because Iran poses a mortal threat to America itself.
What started as the United States finally grasping that it had no option but to neutralize Iran, because it was getting perilously close to obtaining nuclear weapons to hit the “Great Satan," now threatens to turn into a repeat of the 2015 nuclear deal debacle.
President Trump: A second Obama? Daf Hayomi today Chullin 37b: And if you wish, say instead that it is derived from here: “Then I said: Ah, Lord God, my soul has not become impure; and from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa, and no piggul flesh came into my mouth” (Ezekiel 4:14). The Gemara explains: “My soul has not become impure” means that I did not consider any sinful thoughts during the day that would cause me to come to impurity due to a seminal emission at night. “And from my youth until now I have not eaten an unslaughtered carcass or a tereifa” means that I never ate the flesh of an animal that was in danger of imminent death, leading one to say: Slaughter it, slaughter it quickly, before it dies. “And no piggul flesh came into my mouth” means that I never ate from an animal with regard to which there was uncertainty whether it is forbidden and a Sage issued a ruling to permit it.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful. My theory. The Gamara quotes Ezekiel 4:14 “Then I said, Ah, Lord God, my person was never defiled, nor have I eaten anything that died of itself or was torn by beast from my youth until now, nor has foul flesh entered my mouth.” The Talmudic Sages knew of horrible diseases germs viruses from anything that died of itself or was torn by beast or foul stinking dirty meat whatever. Ezekiel was the intrepid leader/prophet in Babylon of the Jews over 2,500 or so years ago. Wow so interesting.
We’re under attack here in Israel, terrorists shooting killing Jews. We stay home. Yes I’m still trying to free my TIAA pension (I get only 45% today from teaching in NYC 1974-1991). Judge Prus ruled that time has long passed for me to appeal any and all NYS rulings awards whatever re my divorce with my 1st wife. I write many UPS letters and I file UPS motions.
President Trump: A second Obama? Daf Hayomi today Chullin 39b: Rav Yehuda says that Shmuel says: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara relates: There were these Arabs who came to Tzikuneya, and they gave rams to Jewish slaughterers. The Arabs said to them: The blood and the fat are for us, for use in our idol worship, and the hide and the flesh are for you. Rav Tuvi bar Rav Mattana sent a question to be asked before Rav Yosef: In a case like this, what is the halakha? Rav Yosef sent to him: This is what Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: The halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, and it is the intent of the slaughterer and not the intent of the owner that determines the validity of the slaughter.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful. My theory. The role of intent firm earnest purpose is critical to understanding the plain words spoken. We saw in last week’s parsha, Calev, had earnest firm purpose to persuade the 10 wicked spies, put on act blah, blah, blah. Common sense good ruling to reduce arguments and make peace of Rabbi Yosei: it is the intent of the slaughterer and not the intent of the owner that determines the validity of the slaughter.
Allow me my court letter June 7, 2026: 3. Question NYS Court of Appeals: Can an elderly man 80.5 years old, in good health, living in Israel, win in NYS courts to get his TIAA pension (he paid for 100% 17 years college teaching in NYC 1974-1991) paid to him in full? Would statutes of limitations laws and rulings block me from winning in NYS courts or not?
President Trump: A second Obama? Daf Hayomi today Chullin 41a: But in the case of an animal offering there is no way in which one can violate all three prohibitions simultaneously. But if a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his, why must the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a bird sin offering? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an animal sin offering. This is because cutting one siman for idolatry does not render the animal forbidden, as the priest has the exclusive right to derive benefit from it, so it does not belong to the owner anymore. Therefore, one would violate the three prohibitions simultaneously.
ReplyDeleteBeautiful. My theory. The Gamara does a deep dive in how so so wrong it is for a person to render an animal fowl whatever that belongs to another person forbidden to that person. “But if a person does not render forbidden an item that is not his, why must the tanna teach the halakha specifically with regard to a bird sin offering?” Yes, animals and fowls are very different. This extremely basic common sense rule needs emphasis and emphasis. Why? So tempting for the wicked minded person to do because he can falsely claim so easily: I had no intention of making something that belongs to my neighbor forbidden to that neighbor.
Hey this relates to me, Aranoff v Aranoff, allow me. I paid TIAA 17 years college teaching in NYC, last 3 Lehman College 1988-1991. Yes I made Aliyah July 8, 1991 without my wife and our 6 kids all under 20. Yes I came to the Brooklyn house in my 1985 SAAB and I took Miriam, my youngest then, in the SAAB to go swimming at Brooklyn College. Yes I spoke then with my wife face to face. She search my jacket and asked me if I had the get. The get was effective February 17, 1993. It is so so wrong that every month in 2026 TIAA pays my 1st wife 55% my TIAA pension. I filed a new motion yesterday for the July 1, 2026 payment. The UPS agent came to my apartment in Bnei Brak. My youngest daughter, Sapphire Rivka, a licensed lawyer, stood with me and the UPS agent and we chatted.