https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rjmfxergjx
Fox News reported from their sources that the report is false and that the staffer was at work and retains her security clearance.
https://www.ynetnews.com/article/rjmfxergjx
Fox News reported from their sources that the report is false and that the staffer was at work and retains her security clearance.
https://time.com/7086622/depression-treatment-app-rejoyn/
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration cleared the first app-based treatment for major depressive disorder, which just became available for use this summer.
The app, called Rejoyn, is cleared as a supplement to currently approved therapies and works by using specifically designed tasks on a smartphone app to rewire neural signals. The idea is to tap into the brain’s circuits so depressive signals and pathways don’t spiral into the debilitating emotional episodes typical of clinical depression.
” “Watching Trump day after day, he’s ignored the advice of many senior, respected Republicans to stay on the issues,” the 71-year-old said. “Instead, he’s still talking about the election being stolen, trashing women left and right. He’s just totally unhinged. We don’t need this chaos. We need to move forward, and that’s why I’m where I am.” Upton said he’s already cast his ballot for Harris, marking the first time he’s ever voted to elect a Democrat president.
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-825701
The Pentagon denied that Ariane Tabatabai, Chief of Staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, is a subject of interest in the investigation for the alleged leak of classified documents pertaining to Israel's plans for a retaliatory attack against Iran.
"To my knowledge, this official is not a subject of interest," said Press Secretary of the Air Force, Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder told reporters on Tuesday afternoon.
Earlier Tuesday, Sky News Arabia cited a senior Pentagon official who reportedly named Tabatabai as the main suspect in the FBI's investigation into the leaks.
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4948868-geraldo-rivera-trump-harris-support/?tbref=hp
“In retrospect, I wish I had bailed on the Trump train a lot sooner before he threatened the Constitution of the United States with its utter destruction,” Rivera told MSNBC’s Ari Melber on “The Beat.”
Rivera, once well-known as a Trump ally, said earlier this month that he is backing Vice President Harris over Trump in the 2024 election, calling the former president “a sore loser who cannot be trusted to honor the Constitution” in a post on social platform X.
“That is why I am voting for Kamala Harris to be our 47th President,” Rivera said in the post.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/10/24/media/fox-news-edit-trump-barbershop-interview/index.html
One of the most telling parts of the dialogue began when an audience member asked Trump about finding a way to eliminate federal taxes in the future. On Fox, Trump was shown immediately answering affirmatively: “There is a way.”
But that response from Trump actually came more than seven minutes later, after Trump (and Jones) brought up other topics, including inheritances, the Keystone Pipeline, Ronald Reagan, Russia, and transgender sports players. Trump had to be nudged back on track several times by the unnamed audience member, who kept circling back, apologetically, and said “I wasn’t able to finish my question.” After he repeated his tax inquiry yet again, Trump said “there is a way.”
https://www.jpost.com/breaking-news/article-825701
The Pentagon has reportedly named Chief of Staff of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations, Ariane Tabatabai, as the prime suspect for an alleged leak of classified documents, Sky News Arabia reported on Tuesday, citing a senior Pentagon official.
A gut gebnsht yor and a gut mo'ed. Thank you for your post today describing the problem faced by kiruv organizations. You indicated that you would like to see source material on this problem, so here is my survey of the relevant halakhic literature:
R. Moshe Sternbuch, Teshuvot ve-Hanhagot, V, no. 296 rejects the conversion of the child of an intermarried family unless the mother converts together with the child [-including that the mother sincerely accepts all the mitzvot as being inherent to the conversion]. Rabbi Sternbuch explains that by the Beth Din attempting to convert the child without the mother, the Beth Din is essentially telling the Jewish [so-called] father to continue to commit the yehareg ve-al ya'avor transgression of remaining in the same home as the Noahide mother. Hence, the Torah will not recognize such a conversion, and the conversion attempt fails.
In Ha-Pardes Vol. 61, no. 10 (Tammuz 5747), the Agudat Rabbanim is reported to reject the conversion of a child from an intermarried family unless the mother converts together with him [-including that the mother sincerely accepts all the mitzvot as being inherent to the conversion]. How can children be validly converted when the so-called Jewish father is obligated to commit suicide rather than remain in the home of the Noahide mother [as per Rema to Shulchan Arukh Even ha-Ezer 16:2]. Available online at
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=12413&st=&pgnum=32&hilite=
To better explain the words of Rabbi Sternbuch and Agudat ha-Rabbanim, it seems to me that the prooftext is as follows. The Gemara states lo amrah Torah shale'ach le-takalah in three different contexts: Yoma 67b regarding the scapegoat, Kiddushin 57b regarding tzipporei metzora, and Chullin 115a and 140a regarding shilu'ach ha-ken. Thus, by the same token, the Torah cannot recognize a conversion of a child of an intermarried family, because the worst takalah imaginable is that a Jewish gentleman thinks that he can establish a normal family with a Noahide lady, taking pride in the so-called "Jewish children" he has from this intermarriage. There is no way that the Torah would recognize such a conversion of the child [even according to Abaye (in Temurah 4b) that kol milta de-amar Rachamana lo ta'avid im avid mahanei. Abayei is discussing a one-time transgression, which he is willing to tolerate post facto, but not a permanent takalah of nasui nokhrit which is yehareg ve-al ya'avor. And how much more so should this be true according to Rava, who opposes Abayei there in Temurah].
In addition to teaching us that it is yehareg ve-al ya'avor for a Jewish gentleman to marry a Noahide lady, Rema (Even ha-Ezer 16:2) also writes that such intermarriage has a hefsed which is not found in the other arayot, since the resulting child is gentile. Yet, why must the Rema bemoan such a hefsed; let him simply recommend converting the child after he is born by immersing the child in the mikveh under the supervision of a Beth Din! Obviously, the answer must be that such a conversion will not take effect, and so Rema will not propose it as a "solution."
Based on points 1-4 above, it is clear that R. Joshua Hirschorn, Teshuvot Mi-Ma'ayanei Yeshu'ah no. 57, p. 161, three paragraphs beginning s.v. ve-hineh [available online at
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=1545&st=&pgnum=160 ]
and R. Yehudah Herzl Henkin, Teshuvot Bnei Vanim, II, no. 36, sec. 3 [available online at
https://hebrewbooks.org/pdfpager.aspx?req=20022&st=&pgnum=139
, are both completely wrong (be-mechilat Kevod Toratam) to claim that the child can be converted.
Thank you and chag same'ach,
Shalom C. Spira
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cz6w6p8x7p8o
What do they not tell us?
Glaringly absent from these documents is any mention of what targets Israel intends to hit in Iran, or when.
The US has made no secret of its opposition to the targeting of either Iran’s nuclear research facilities or its oil installations.
That leaves military bases, most likely those belonging to Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and its affiliated Basij militia as these two institutions are seen as the backbone of the Islamic Republic, projecting its military reach abroad and suppressing popular protest at home.
Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe O.H. 1 Introduction): It is correct and obligatory for the sages of the latter generations to decide halacha - even if they are not qualified according to the standards of the sages of the gemora. Therefore there is definitely a concern that their halachic determinations are not in accord with the view of Heaven. However in truth we are guided by the principle that Torah is not in Heaven. Rather it is determined according to what appears correct to the rabbi after proper study of the issue to clarify the halacha according to the Talmud, and the writings of poskim. He is to use his full abilities to seriously deliberate with fear of Heaven - in order to determine what appears to be the correct halacha. Such a psak is viewed as true and he is obligated to issue his conclusion. This obligation exists even if in fact his ruling is contrary to the halacha in Heaven. His ruling is also considered the “word of the living G‑d as long as he is convinced he is correct and it is internally consistent. He will receive reward for his rulings even if the truth is not in accord with his position. Proof for this is found in Shabbos (130a): A certain city in Israel that followed the halacha according to R’ Eliezer - even though this was not the accepted halacha - got great reward in terms of long life… Thus ruling which a rabbi is obligated to teach and receive reward for is that which he decides after studying the issue with his full ability. This obligation and receiving of reward exists even if the ruling is not in accord with the truth. This is the nature of all disputes of the rishonim and achronim concerning what is permitted and what if prohibited. As long as a universal ruling has not been determined - each rabbi can make decisions for his followers according to that which he thinks is correct - even though the objective halacha is only in accord with one of them. Both will also receive reward for their rulings. Because of this we find much dispute also in the most severe prohibitions - with variations between places that rule like the Rambam and Beis Yosef and those that rule like Tosfos and the Rema. Both of the opposing views are “the words of the living G‑d even though the actual truth as understood by Heaven is only like one of them.
Rav Moshe Feinstein(Igros Moshe Y.D. 3:92): Our Sages describe the opposing views of halachic debate as both being “the words of the living G‑d.” This means that Torah study of the diverse views of Sages inherently does not contain something which is not true. Thus the opposing views of Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel are both true. This rule applies also to the disputes of R’ Eliezer and all the Tannaim and Amoraim. All of them were given from One Shepherd. Thus it was not untrue when the Heavenly Bas Kol announced that the Halacha was in accord with R’ Eliezer. His words were inherently true - even though in this world we decide practical Halacha on the basis of majority decision. Because of the inherent truth of all views of our sages, we say the blessing “Who gave to us the Torah of truth” even if we are only learning the views that have been rejected from practical Halacha such as Beis Shammai or minority opinions.
R’ Yisroel Salanter(Ohr Yisroel #30): Perhaps the reason that the Bas Kol announced that both Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel were the “words of the living G‑d” was not that a rejected opinion is not Torah (because Torah is not in Heaven and they both obviously had a tradition from Moshe at Sinai and hadn’t forgotten it). But rather so the people should not despair after seeing them dispute for three years. They might have thought that perhaps the disputing sides had slipped slightly from total objectivity and that this slight bias removed the rejected view of Beis Shammai from being considered G‑d’s Torah. Therefore, the Bas Kol informed them that the view of Beis Shammai were totally acceptable to G‑d. The debate was prolonged because each side felt strongly that their view was superior to the other. Nevertheless, even the rejected views of Beis Shammai are the “words of the living G‑d” and one who studies them is studying G‑d’s Torah.