Spiritual and psychological benefits of not being in Israel - Rav Tzadok

Pri tzadik (vayechi) כי הי"ז שנה שהיה במצרים החיה גם אותם השנים שעברו עליו. וכמו שאמרו (סא"ר פ' ה) כל שהשיגתו שנה א' טובה סמוך לזקנתו סימן יפה לו כו' והעלה עליו הקב"ה כאלו כל ימיו היה בטובה. כי כל ימי יעקב שהיה בצערא לא נקראו חיים אצל יעקב כי לא נשלם בקדושתו ורק במצרים זכה להשתלם בקדושתו. ולכאורה לפי השכל כיון שארץ ישראל מקום המקודש מכל העולם ולאאע"ה אמר הקב"ה לך לך וגו' ושם אעשך לגוי גדול. וליצחק אמר גור בארץ הזאת וגו' והאבות וגם יעקב בעצמו חבבו את הארץ. היה ראוי שישתלם יעקב בקדושתו בארץ הקדושה ולא במצרים בארץ הטמאה ועמה מזוהמים יותר מכל העולם. אכן מצינו כמו כן בגלות בבל ובגלות בית שני שעיקר התפשטות התושבע"פ היה דייקא בבבל. ודייקא שם נתגלה להם רזי התורה מה שלא נתגלה להם בישבם על אדמתם ודייקא בבבל היו אנשי כנה"ג. וא' (סוכה מד.) דלהון היא וכן (שם כ.) עלה עזרא מבבל ויסדה חזרה ונשתכחה עלה הלל וכו' עלו ר' חייא ובניו ויסדוה. ואח"כ התלמוד בבלי שהוא עיקר תושבע"פ שלנו ונתייסד בבבל.

The 17 years that Jacob was in Egypt revived some of those bad years which befell him.  This idea is stated (in ) that if an individual lives a good year close to his old age, it is a good sign for him, and G-d considers it as if all his days were good.  All the days of Jacob when he was in pain was not considered to be life because they were not completed in holiness (?) and only in Egypt did he merit to complete them in his holiness.  Logic would dictate that since Israel is the place of greatest holiness in the world, as G-d told Abraham to leave Aram and go to the land of Israel, and Isaac was told that he would be blessed if he lived in this land.  Jacob himself loved the land, and it would have been fitting for Jacob to complete his life in holiness in the holy land, and not in Egypt which is an impure land, and its people are more polluted than any other.  

We find that in the exile in Babylon and in the exile of the second Temple that the main expansion of the oral Torah was specifically in exile.  Specifically there the secrets of the Torah were revealed, more than was revealed while the Jews were in Israel.  It is specifically from Babylon that the people of the great assembly arose and they were able to establish the law of Arava (c.f. Sukkah 44a) We also see in Sukkah (20A) that Ezra rose from Babylon and established Torah, and thereafter Torah was forgotten.  Hillel then went and re-established it (and Hillel was also from Babylon (ed)), Rabbi Chiya and his sons (from Babylon) reconstituted the Torah. 

This Parasha is closed.  Our Rabbis have explained the reasons for it, and they are all true.  There is another reason for it being closed.  The completion of Jacob's holiness is specifically in Egypt, and not in the land of Israel.  This coincides with the notion that the revelation and arrival of the Jewish People which contains the souls which were prepared for the acceptance of the Torah specifically in a foreign land and not in Israel, and that the end of the creation of the world occurs in the land of Egypt.  These concepts are closed(Satum) from human understanding.

https://www.sefaria.org/Peri_Tzadik%2C_Vayechi.1.6?lang=bi&lookup=This%20Parasha%20is%20closed.%20%20Our%20Rabbis%20have%20explained%20the%20reasons%20for%20it%2C%20and%20they%20are%20all%20true.%20%20There%20is%20another%20reason%20for%20it%20being%20closed.%20%20The%20completion%20of%20Jacob%27s%20holiness%20is%20specifically%20in%20Egypt%2C%20and%20not%20in%20the%20land%20of%20Israel.%20%20This%20coincides%20with%20the%20notion%20that%20the%20revelation%20and%20arrival%20of%20the%20Jewish%20People%20which%20contains%20the%20souls%20which%20were%20prepared%20for%20the%20acceptance%20of%20the%20Torah%20specifically%20in%20a%20foreign%20land%20and%20not%20in%20Israel%2C%20and%20that%20the%20end%20of%20the%20creation%20of%20the%20world%20occurs%20in%20the%20land%20of%20Egypt.%20%20These%20concepts%20are%20closed(Satum)%20from%20human%20understanding.&with=Lexicon&lang2=en

Coercion: Enforcing Performance of Mitzvot

 https://din.org.il/en/2019/03/14/coercion-enforcing-performance-of-mitzvot/

The book of Vayikra begins with instructions for the korban olah (Elevation Offering): “If one’s offering is an elevation offering from the cattle, he shall offer an unblemished male; he shall bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, voluntarily, before Hashem” (Vayikra 1:3).

On the words “he shall bring it,” Rashi comments that if one does not bring an obligated offering, we force him to fulfill his obligation. At the same time, Chazal note (Rosh Hashanah 6a) that the word “voluntarily” indicates that a person may not be coerced into bringing an offering. The resolution of this contradiction is that the court coerces him until he says that he desires to bring the offering.

Aside from coercing a person to bring his offerings, we also find a general instruction to enforce the performance of mitzvos. Chazal express this principle in no uncertain terms: “One who states: I will not build a Sukkah, I will not take a Lulav—we smite him until his soul (almost) departs.”

In this article we will discuss this principle of coercion for mitzvos. What is the rationale behind coercing to perform mitzvos? Is there a distinction between coercion of positive and negative commandments? Who is responsible for coercing others? And is there any value in a coerced act? These questions, among others, are discussed below.

Forcing mitzva observance

 Kesubos (86a) Said K. Kahana to R. Papa; According to the statement you made that the repayment of a debt to a creditor is a religious act, what is the ruling where a debtor said, I am not disposed to perform a religious act? We the other replied. have learned: This applies only to negative precepts, but in the case of positive precepts, as for instance, when a man is told, Make a sukkah and he does not make it or, Perform the commandment of the lulab and he does not perform it he is flogged until his soul departeth.

 Chullin (132b) But with regard to one who refuses to perform a positive mitzva, e.g., the court says to him: Perform the mitzva of sukka, and he does not do so, or: Perform the mitzva of taking the lulav, and he does not do so, or: Prepare ritual fringes for your garments, and he does not do so, the court strikes him an unlimited number of times, even until his soul departs.

Rashi (Chullin 110b) כפתוהו - על העמוד להלקותו כדתניא (כתובות דף פו.) בד"א דארבעים ותו לא במצות לא תעשה שכבר נעשית העבירה אבל מצות עשה שלפניו ואינו רוצה לקיימה כגון אומרין לו עשה סוכה ואינו עושה עשה לולב ואינו עושה מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו:

https://wiki.jewishbooks.org.il/mediawiki/wiki/%D7%A2%D7%A8%D7%9A/%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%A4%D7%99%D7%9F_%D7%A2%D7%9C_%D7%94%D7%9E%D7%A6%D7%95%D7%95%D7%AA

Kremlin: We Reject All Western Media but Tucker Carlson Is Different

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/kremlin-we-reject-all-western-media-but-tucker-carlson-is-different?ref=home

The Kremlin confirmed Wednesday that an interview between Tucker Carlson and Vladimir Putin has already taken place, with a spokesperson for the Russian president also explaining what makes the former Fox News host special, in Putin’s eyes, compared with other Western reporters whose requests for access are routinely rejected.

He added that Putin has “no desire to communicate with such media” because it’s “unlikely that there can be any benefit from this.” Carlson, on the other hand, is different, Peskov said, because he takes a position unlike the rest of the “Anglo-Saxon media.” Peskov characterized Carlson as not being either pro-Russian or pro-Ukrainian, just pro-American.

עושים סדר בדברים: חסיד לא מחליט עבור הרבי מה הוא ייתן לו

 https://chabad.info/special/1050597/

בכל מה שקשור לנתינה מהרבי

אל החסיד – הרבי בעצמו מחליט מתי לתת לנו והוא יעשה זאת בזמן ומקום שהוא יראה לנכון. חסיד אינו רשאי ולא יכול 'להחליט' לרבי מתי הוא יתן לו.

היסוד להתבטלות אל הרבי היא התמימות והפשטות. כולנו מכירים סיפורים רבים שבהם חסידים בעלי אמונה תמימה השתוקקו מאוד לקבל דולר מהרבי אחרי ג' תמוז – וקיבלו דולר של הרבי בדרכים שונות. זה קיבל את הדולר כעודף בחנות, זה מצא דולר בפריטת השטרות. הצד השווה שבכולם – שהרבי בחר מתי ואיך להביא להם את הדולר…

Rape - does G-d want someone to be raped?

A young lady once came to me for a theological consultation. This poised cheerful woman told me that when she was 10 she had been raped by two young yeshiva students at a religious summer camp. As a result of this incident she went into severe depression, became suicidal, and was finally placed in a mental hospital for an extended time. She said that baruch hashem, she had recovered and was no longer depressed or obsessed with revenge. Her visit was precipitated by having just seen her assailants walking down the street in Geula in Jerusalem with their wives and children - as if they had never done anything evil. She said there was only one issue left from her experience which she couldn't come to grips with - Why did G-d want her to be raped?" All the rabbis she had consulted with told her that it was G-d's will and that while they couldn't explain it that it must have been good and necessary. She just had to accept it as G-d's will. Her problem was that she couldn't accept that she worshipped a G-d that wanted this horrible thing to happen. I answered her that she was being told the dominant chassidic/kabbalistic view. However I told her that the Rishonim had a different view, i.e., that it is possible for a man to chose to hurt another - even though G-d doesn't want it to happen. That she will be compensated in the Next World for her suffering but that G-d didn't cause it to happen. She was able to accept that view.

No creature has the ability to help or harm anything without G‑d’s permission

 Chovas HaLevavos (4:3): No creature has the ability to help or harm anything without G‑d’s permission. A servant with many masters would seek help from all of them if they are able and he would not rely entirely on one. However if one can help more than the others than the strength of his trust in that master is proportional to the degree that he can help. Consequently if there is only one master who can help than obviously he will solely trust that master. Therefore when a person realizes that none can help or help him without G‑d’s permission he will stop fearing any being and cease to place his hopes in any other than G‑d. That is why Tehilim (146:3) says: Do not trust in princes or in man who cannot be of any help.

Free will can overcome Providence

 Netziv (Bereishis 37:13 Harchev Davar): Yaakov could have sent a servant to determine the welfare of his sons but he was worried that he would be endangering the life of the servant. In contrast, since he was sure that the righteousness of Yosef would protect him from harm. Similarly the Zohar says that Reuven had Yosef thrown into a pit full of snakes and scorpions because he was sure that his righteousness would protect him from harm. This that he was afraid that the brothers would harm Yosef is different since a person’s free will can overcome Providence. A clear proof to this is the fact Darius had no fear that Daniel would be harmed by the lions but was afraid that the noblemen would harm him. However, G‑d forbid to say that Heaven can not protect against the free will of man, but it does require a much greater level of personal merit. In other words he must be perfectly righteous (tzadik gamor) not only in relationship to G‑d but also with people…

All wisdom is from the Torah

 Rabbeinu Bachya (Bereishis Introduction 01:05) From what verse do we learn that all wisdoms are found in the Torah and come from it? Shlomo HaMelech has alluded to this in Shir HaShirim 4:11) Your lips, O my bride, drip sweetness like the honeycomb; honey and milk are under your tongue; and the scent of your garments is like the scent of Lebanon. The Bride is a metaphor for Torah. Shlomo is teaching us with this verse that all wisdom which are described as a honeycomb all of them come from the lips of the bride. The reason that a honeycomb is used as as a metaphor is because all wisdoms except for Torah are mixed with dross like a honeycomb which has both honey and wax. In contrast our holy Torah  is only pure honey completely free of wax and other impurities

ואם תשאל ותאמר מאין לנו מן הכתוב שכל החכמות נכללות בתורה ונמשכות ויוצאות ממנה, הנה שלמה ע"ה באר זה בתוך רמזי דבריו, והוא אומרו (שיר ד') "נופת תטופנה שפתותיך כלה דבש וחלב תחת לשונך וריח שלמותיך כריח לבנון", המשיל התורה לכלה... ולמדך שלמה המלך ע"ה בכתוב הזה שכל החכמות הנמשלות  נופת כלן נוטפות משפתי הכלה. ומה שהמשילן לנופת לפי שכל החכמות חוץ מחכמת תורתנו כלן יש בהם תערובת וסיג כנופת הזה שכולל הדבש ושעוה, אבל חכמת תורתנו הקדושה היא הדבש הגמור הנקי מן השעוה ומכל פסולת

Torah study must precede all other education

 Rabbeinu Bachya (Bamidbar 33:01) Although all wisdoms are comparable to silver, Torah wisdom is like silver which has been refined seven times over. All other wisdom contains elements comparable to dross, impurities, which have a tendency to invalidate that wisdom. Our Torah, by contrast, will not lead man to sustain losses either in money or through misleading him philosophically. When Solomon demands that Torah must be the first subject studied, he means that unless one learns about the meaning and purpose of miracles one may fall victim to the theory that nature preceded the Lawgiver chronologically, that the universe was not created by Hashem. The reason that in Hebrew nature is known as teva is that if one delves into the study of nature before having studied Torah such study is liable to swallow a person, he will “sink into a morass,” just as people who are drowned by the sea, were drowned, because they had not learned to swim first. A person who has studied Torah and early Jewish history summarized in the Torah knows that in addition to “nature” and natural laws, the Creator Who is totally free has demonstrated on many occasions that He is the master of what we call “laws of nature” by temporarily suspending these so-called eternal laws and thus demonstrating that it must have been He who had created and formulated them in the first place.  Scientists, when they read about the miracles which the Torah records they assume that the desert through which the Israelites marched must have been a very benign strip of land, capable of producing crops, etc., etc. They totally deny what the Torah describes as “this great and terrible wilderness inhabited by fierce serpents, etc., etc., through which the L-rd your G-d has led you”. The point made by the Torah is precisely that the deserts through which the Israelites marched was even more hostile to human habitat than regular deserts. This is why the Torah stresses beyond doubt “it was not a place where one could sow or expect to plant fruit-bearing trees such as figs, pomegranates, etc.” There were no wells. The experience of the Jewish people therefore was by itself so miraculous that unless we study it before we study general subjects we would not appreciate the greatness of G-d and His works.

Torah Study Requires A Job to earn a Living

 Rabbeinu Yonah (Avos 2:02) And all study of the Torah in the absence of a worldly occupation comes to nothing in the end: Like the matter that they said in our treatise (Avot 3 17), "If there is no flour, there is no Torah." The matter is like its simple understanding - when he neglects work, it brings him to poverty and it drags along several sins and its evil is great. As on account of it, he will 'love gifts and not live,' and flatter people even if they are evildoers, in order that they give to him. Also when the money from the gifts runs out, he will become a thief or a kidnapper (or gambler) and will bring 'home loot taken from the poor' so that he not die of hunger. And when a person reaches these traits, his spirit knows no restraint and he will not rest and not be still until he transgresses all of the commandments that are stated in the Torah, since 'one sin brings along [another] sin.' And about this, the sages said in Tractate Chullin 44b (see also Berakhot 8a), "Anyone who benefits from his toil, the verse states about him (Psalms 128:2), 'If you eat the toil of your hands you shall be happy and it will be good for you' - happy in this world, and good for you in the world (to come)." Therefore it is necessary for a sage to know a craft, as it is stated (Ecclesiastes 7:11), "Good is wisdom with an inheritance." 

Vishnitzer Rebbe - siddur for children

 

Rodef to save victim?

 It is interesting to note that Rashi (Sanhedrin 73a)goes against the obvious meaning in the law of rodef and says it means to stop a person from sinning even by killing him and it is not primarily to protect the victim as others such as Rambam state

This approach might explain the lack of concern with stopping pedophiles since this doesn't seem to involve a clearly stated sin

Medieval commentators offered the two alternative answers. Rashi interprets: “These are to be saved — from the transgression.”11 Thus, according to Rashi, the purpose of the law is to save the pursuers by preventing him from committing the transgression. On the other hand, Maimonides in his interpretation to the Mishnah writes: “And the purpose of this saving is that we were commanded to save this pursued person from the hands of the pursuer that wants to kill him or to commit a [sexual] violation with him in any way possible, even by killing the pursuer before he will commit the violation and that is the meaning of “at the cost of their lives,” namely, the life of the pursuer.” The same interpretation is offered by R. Meir Halevi Abulafia in his commentary to the Talmud (Yad-Ramah): “These are to be saved – from their pursuers at the cost of their lives, namely, the lives of their 

https://www.academia.edu/6228030/The_Law_of_Pursuer_Rodef_in_Talmudic_Sources

there seems to be a contradiction in the Rambam

Rambam (Commentary to Sanhedrin 8:7): Concerning someone who is trying to commit any sexual sins punishable by kares or death – he can be saved from sinning by killing him…

Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:9): Our Sages taught that when there is a difficult birth it is permitted to kill the unborn baby because it is like a pursuer trying to kill the mother. However once the head has emerged then it can’t be harmed because we don’t harm one person for the sake of another. This is the natural way of the world.

Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:6): … However someone who is pursuing another person to kill him – even if the pursuer (rodef) is a child – then every Jew is commanded to save the pursued from the rodef even if the only way to save the pursued is by killing the rodef.

Reb Chaim Brisker (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:9): … It would appear that the Rambam’s understanding of this halacha of killing the unborn baby to save the mother is based on the law of killing the rodef in order to save the nirdaf (victim). His fundamental principle is that the life of the rodef is sacrificed because of the pikuach nefesh (life saving) of the victim. This is stated in Sanhedrin (74a): R’Yonasan ben Shmuel said that a rodef who is trying to kill someone and it is possible to stop him by maiming one of his limbs but he is killed instead – the one who killed the rodef is himself executed for his actions. We see from this the sole justification for killing the rodef is to save the victim. So even though we have a universal rule that “one life is not terminated for the sake of another life” – it is different in the case of rodef because the Torah tells us that the case of rodef is an exception to the rule. The Torah verse that the Rambam refers to that tells us that rodef is an exception is Devarim (22:12): Do not have mercy on the soul of the rodef. In other words the verse tells us that in this case of rodef we don’t apply the rule that ‘one life is not terminated for the sake of another life.” Therefore the life of the rodef is sacrificed [to save the life of the victim].

Tosfos (Sanhedrin 73a): He is saved with his life – the apparent meaning of this is that the victim is saved by killing the rodef (pursuer). But it is not possible to explain it in that way in the case of one who pursues an animal for bestiality and similar cases. Therefore it seems that the explanation is that the pursuer is killed to save him from sinning. However this does not fit with the case of the rape of a

betrothed maiden where is says that she is saved by killing the pursuer….

Tosefta (Sanhedrin 11:11): One who pursues a male [for homosexual relations] whether it is in the house or field – he is saved from sin by killing him. If he is running after a betrothed maiden whether in the house or field – he is to be saved from sin by killing him. If he is running after a betrothed maiden or after any of the prohibited sexual relations mentioned in the Torah – he is to be saved from sin by killing him. However if he pursues a widow and he is the cohen gadol or he pursues a divorce or chalutza and he is an ordinary cohen – he is not to be saved from sin by killing him. If she has already been raped, he is not saved from sin by killing him. Furthermore if there is another way of saving her, he is not saved from sin by killing him R’ Yehuda said that if the pursued woman says to leave the rodef alone – he is still saved from sin by killing him..

Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 425:1): …. Someone who endangers the community such as being involved in counterfeiting in a country where the king strongly objects – then he has the status of rodef and it is permitted to inform on him to the secular authorities…

Rav Sternbuch (1:850): Question: A Jewish driver who normally speeds or doesn’t have a license – is it permitted to report him to the police? Answer: It states explicitly in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 388:12) that if someone is engaged in counterfeiting and is thus a danger to the community – he should be warned to stop. If he doesn’t listen to the warning it is possible to report him to the police. The Gra there says that the counterfeiter has the status of a rodef (pursuer) even though he does not intend to harm others and even though the harm is an indirect result of his actions and even though the danger is only a possibility not a certainty. There is nothing more dangerous than a reckless driver who is speeding or one who has no knowledge of proper driving skills - as indicated by the fact he has no license. Such people are likely to kill other, chas v’shalom and therefore they have the halachic status of rodef (pursuer). That is why in fact the secular law that requires a skilled driver with a license is in fact a just and obvious law for the welfare of society and we are fully obligated to observe these laws. Anyone who treats these laws with contempt and disobeys them, we are concerned that such a person can come to kill and therefore he deserves serious punishment – even imprisonment… 

Minchas Yitzchok (8:148): Is it permitted to report to the police reckless drivers who are a danger to other motorists and pedestrians? Concerning the question regarding motorists who drive their vehicles in a manner which endangers all those who are on the road with them by means of the means different scenarios that are described in his letter. Is it permitted to report them to the police? This will typically result in a monetary punishment or the cancellation of their driver’s license for a fixed period or incarceration in jail and it serves as a deterrent to actions which endanger others. Answer: Even though halacha prohibits causing a Jew to be given bodily or financially to the secular justice system, nevertheless a Jew who endangers other people is not included in this prohibition. This is explicitly stated by the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11) and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 388:12): “All those who disturb the community and cause it distress it is permitted to give them over to the secular government to be punished whether by beating, imprisonment or fines…” It is obvious that all those who drive carelessly and in a wild manner, endanger the lives of all those are near them. We in fact have been commanded to avoid danger and to prevent it from happening. Perhaps by taking actions against these drivers it will prevent danger and reduce the number of accidents. …Therefore those who are involved in this mitzva of life saving should first go to beis din and to present their claims before them…

Rav Yosef Eliashiv (Nishmas Avraham 4:208-211): Rav Eliashiv told me that there is in fact no difference in halacha between a teacher who is molesting boys or girls since in both cases we are talking about severe mental damages and danger to the public. He cited the Beis Yosef who cites the Rashba regarding R’ Eliezar ben Rav Shimon (Bava Metzia 83a) who reported thieves to the government… Regarding this Rav Eliashiv said that we learn from this that surely in the case of child abuse which is more severe then theft that it would be permitted to first report it to the principal of the school and if he doesn’t do anything to report the matter to the police even in the Diaspora.

Ran (Sanhedrin 73a): Since it is a mitzva to kill the rodef in order to save his victim, why is there a need for the verse of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow” It is clearly a mitzva to exert yourself to save him – such as if he is drowning in the river or being attacked by bandits? The answer is the verse that tells you that you can kill the rodef is only relevant when it is absolutely clear to you that he is intent on killing. Similarly if it is absolutely certain that he will drown in the river if you don’t save him. However in a case of where it is uncertain, we would not know that there is an obligation. Therefore the verse of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow” teaches us that it is also a mitzva to try and save him even though it is uncertain [while the case of certain need is learned from rodef].

Rav Yehuda Silman (Yeschurun 15): Question: Is it permitted to kill someone that there are doubts whether he is in fact a rodef (threat to life)? I was asked concerning a security guard in a public place e.g., the entrance of a restaurant or a mall who notices a man approach and he appears suspicious. The person is acting strangely and appears to be an Arab. When the security guard approaches him, he begins to run. The security guards suspects that he is a terrorist. This is only a suspicion since it is possible that he is in fact a Jew and there are people in the world who act strangely. In addition it is possible that the suspicious stranger is running away simply out of panic. However it is possible that in a short time the stranger will in fact cause a serious terror attack. Is it permitted to kill the stranger when the facts are not clear? This is a common question and a similar question can be asked regarding a bank teller who is suddenly confronted with a bandit with a pistol in his hand. There are many times when it is later determined that the gun was only a toy and even if it were real the bandit didn’t intend to kill but only to scare the bank teller. Nevertheless there is a doubt whether the person is in danger. In such circumstances is it permitted to kill him? Answer:… Conclusions: 1) It appears that we hold in practice that it is permitted to killed a suspected rodef. In other words someone who is doing activities that endanger others even if there are doubts. … 4)Therefore in the two versions of the question that were asked concerning a suspicious person it is permitted to kill him. That is only in a case there are valid bases to suspect that he is trying to kill. 5) In contrast in the case of someone running in the forest or is shooting and there are doubts as to his intent[ - he is not to be viewed as a rodef because we assume he has a legitimate reason for doing these things (chezkas kashrus).

Meiri (Sanhedrin 73a): Sages over the generations have agreed that the rodef is killed to save the pursued – even outside of Israel. It is not necessary to say that this is a judgment decided in beis din, since this law was given for every person to judge. A proof of this is found in the last chapter of Berachos (58a) concerning an incident with R’ Sheila where he decided someone was a rodef and it wasn’t in beis

din.

Kitzur Shulchan Aruch (184:1):… If someone is being beaten or he witnesses another Jew being beaten and it is impossible to save himself or the other person from the assailant without hitting him – it is permitted to hit the assailant.

Appeals Court Rejects Trump’s Immunity Claim

 https://www.wsj.com/us-news/law/appeals-court-rejects-trumps-immunity-claim-0ef2d636?mod=hp_listb_pos2

Donald Trump isn’t immune from prosecution on charges he plotted to overturn the 2020 election, a federal appeals court unanimously ruled Tuesday, handing the former president an expected defeat that he suggested he would contest at the Supreme Court.