The Kishinev Pogrom, Jewish Passivity, and Jewish Self-Defense

 https://mosaicmagazine.com/picks/history-ideas/2018/04/the-kishinev-pogrom-jewish-passivity-and-jewish-self-defense/

Curiously enough, however, Bialik recorded in the transcripts of the interviews [with pogrom survivors] he conducted during his Kishinev stay, often in copious detail, many efforts at Jewish self-defense, including one so notorious—in the minds of local anti-Semites and their sympathizers, at least—that they would credit it, and not their own actions, as the main cause for [the] violence.

When fifty-seven-year-old Yeḥiel Kiserman fought off four attackers, throwing several of them to the ground, a rumor rapidly spread that a Jew had murdered Christians. This news further enraged the mobs, which now attacked with heightened fury. . . .

House Democrats Have Document That Refutes GOP’s Biden Bribery Claims

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/house-democrats-have-a-document-that-refutes-gops-biden-bribery-claims?ref=home?ref=home

House Oversight Committee Democrats on Thursday unveiled a document filled out by Mykola Zlochevsky—who their colleagues across the aisle allege may have handed Biden a $5 million kickback—in which the Ukrainian oligarch says he never interacted with Biden when he was vice president.

Jews should not defend themselves

 The following was written in the aftermath of the Chmelnicki massacres, He says the rabbinic leaders felt that resisting the attacks would ultimately lead to  a greater number of Jews being killed.

The author is ר גבריאל בן יהושע שוסברג there are תשובות in halacha from him. He says that that was the  פסק הוראת הגאונים הרבנים that was followed by the people then as a "הוראת שעה" it's not clear if that means כפשוטו that it's not standard halacha or that the circumstances then required it.

The book ‘Shemirat Shabbat Ke’Hilchata’ and the controversy it provoked

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/373402

Despite the enormous virtues of ‘Shemirat Shabbat Ke’Hilchata’, disputes arose in Bnei Brak. Rabbi Yaacov Yisrael Kanievsky (the Steipler) wrote that it was his duty “to write here a great and necessary notice, because in our times of a an orphaned generation, in which everyone does as they please, there is no doubt that there are compositions about which Chazal said ‘for many are those she has struck dead’, who claim to collect and order the laws of the Shulchan Aruch, and it is forbidden to rely on them. Because apart from gathering instructions [to be lenient, of course] from everything they find in essays and journals [many of which have nothing at all to base themelves on], they also add their own disruptions and distortions in the hundreds, knowingly or unknowingly, and all with the aim of introducing leniencies upon leniencies into the laws of our holy Torah, and God forbid, one should rely on such treatises”.

My paperback seforim are available in Flatbush at IM HaSefer 18th street

 You can now get Yad Yisrael and Yad Moshe  (English)as well as my books on abuse and Daas  Torah in Brooklyn - either from Amazon or

IM Hasefer 

1188 E 18th St, Brooklyn, NY 11230, USA

(718) 377-0047

REPORT: SAUDI ARABIA CONCLUDED JARED KUSHNER’S INVESTMENT FIRM WAS A JOKE, GAVE HIM $2 BILLION ANYWAY

 https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-2-billion-investment

On Sunday, The New York Times reported that just six months after leaving the White House, the former first son-in-law’s newly formed private equity firm, Affinity Partners, was awarded a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, which is led by MBS. That the kingdom would fork over that kind of cash to Kushner is obviously ridiculously shady and, as Nick Penniman, the founder and chief executive of good-government organization Issue One, told The Times, “swampy and seemingly hypocritical.” But the cash alone is not even the funniest part, and by funniest we mean insanely unethical and wildly corrupt. No, the unethical and corrupt part is that the people who perform due diligence for the Saudis’ Public Investment Fund concluded Kushner’s firm was a joke and that he might make them look bad…and then the board, headed by MBS, gave him the money anyway. Because…y’know.

Emunas Chachomim - Rav Nochum Rabinovitch

See Hakirah Magazune for the full article

What is “Emunat Ḥakhamim”?*

By: Rabbi Nachum Rabinovitch 

 https://hakirah.org/Vol%205%20Rabinovitch.pdf

The Responsibility of the Individual

This obligation to work at achieving and clarifying the truth is not limited to those who are on the level of deciding halakhah. The Torah was given to all Jews, each of whom is obligated to learn the Torah sufficiently to be capable of arranging all his actions according to halakhah. For this purpose we need to understand the reasons for the halakhah, “for if one does not comprehend the reasoning behind the halakhah, he does not understand the halakhot themselves correctly and clearly. He is the “undeveloped” person [of whom the Mishnah says, “cannot and does not fear aveirot.”] For this reason many [poskim] prohibit issuing halakhic rulings out of books which summarize the laws without providing reasons or background. It is therefore not permitted to postpone studying the reasoning behind the halakhot….”11

Until a person has studied sufficiently so that he can decide halakhot, he has no choice but to choose a rav from whom he can inquire concerning what he may do and what approach he should take. Even when one has acquired substantial knowledge, if he is truly wise he will never rely exclusively on his own decision but will turn to other ḥakhamim for their opinion and advice. But one who has insufficient knowledge, yet fails to turn to a ḥakham for guidance, relying instead on his own weak understanding, is but an arrogant person with no fear of Heaven. 

Yet, even when one asks a rav to rule for him and the rav renders a psak, he is not relieved of his responsibility to understand the reasoning behind the psak. The rishonim already dealt with this topic, and I will quote here the instructive words of the Ba’al ha-Ma’or on tractate Sanhedrin (p. 12a in the Rif). 

“If you were to ask: We hold [the prevailing view] that cases of garmi (damages resulting from direct and predictable cause) are liable for court adjudication. Why then do we say that when a judge

errs in something stated explicitly in a Mishnah, he simply reverses his ruling but is not responsible for any losses, even if the damage incurred by the litigant due to his error is irrevocable? [For example,] the case of the cow of Bet Menaḥem whose meat can not be returned because R. Tarfon [the judge] had already [caused it to be] fed to the dogs [by those who followed his ruling]. “The answer is: The litigant was negligent. Since the error is in that which is stated explicitly in a Mishnah, the error is obvious, and the litigant should not have relied upon him and should not have acted upon what he was told. He should have questioned [the judge] and demonstrated the error, for this  was as obvious as an explicit Mishnah. Therefore it is the litigant who was negligent; the judge’s ruling is superfluous. This is what is meant by: It is as if the judge never issued the ruling; he did nothing at all [to the litigant].” 

Thus, one who consults even an outstanding rav is considered negligent if he does not attempt to clarify and confirm that the psak he received is indeed correct. This is how great is each individual’s responsibility for his actions; this is how effectively he must clarify the correct ruling, as well as what Hashem expects of him in each situation

We can conclude from all this that emunat ḥakhamim is indeed an exalted attribute, but one that is quite difficult to achieve. It is not found in those who are lazy, who wish to relieve themselves of the burden of study. True emunat ḥakhamim obligates one to delve deeply to find the reasoning behind the ḥakhamim’s words while at the same time requiring the student or inquirer to be critical and to investigate rigorously, in order to verify that there is no room for dissent. Certainly there exists justification for their words; we still need to determine if they are to be actually carried out, למעשה הלכה.

All this applies to words of Torah, which all Jews are commanded to know and carry out. On the one hand one may not rely on his own knowledge to issue rulings—even for himself, certainly for others—without consulting and seeking advice from ḥakhamim. “Any scholar who has not yet achieved the level that qualifies him to issue rulings, and he nevertheless does so, is an arrogant fool…. Junior students who have not acquired an appropriate store of Torah knowledge and want to appear important to the commoners and to their own communities, leap at the opportunity to sit at the head, to weigh and decide judgments and to instruct Jewish communities. They are the ones who cause divisiveness, they destroy the world, extinguish the light of the Torah, and destroy the vineyard of the Lord of Hosts” (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Talmud Torah 5:4). On the other hand, even when one does ask and seek advice, he is not freed from the obligation to personally

understand the halakhah so that he is not like a blind person following one teacher or another. Obviously, someone who has no knowledge has no choice but to choose a rav and to follow him. But he still bears the responsibility of learning so that he can understand

and validate the teachings of his rav. 

Conclusion

Recently, some have begun applying the term “emunat ḥakhamim” to something else entirely, something that Ḥazal never discussed—that ḥakhamim also have prophetic authority in divrei reshut. 12 We are not talking about asking advice of those who are experienced and wise in Torah, whose righteousness, Torah knowledge and brilliance provide good guidance and sound advice. It is surely good for any person to

seek advice from those who are greater and better than he. But there is a difference between asking advice and taking personal responsibility for one’s actions, and relying on others with absolutely no independent thought. There are those who label such childish behavior as “emunat ḥachamim” while in reality it is a distortion of this great attribute. Instead of acquiring true Torah, those who cling to this distorted “emunat ḥakhamim” distance themselves from the light of the Torah and are ultimately incapable of distinguishing between right and wrong.

The distinction between a prophet and a ḥakham is clear enough. When a prophet instructs on divrei reshut, not only are we commanded to obey, but “it is forbidden to have any thoughts of doubt or to contemplate the possibility that the prophecy never took place, and it is forbidden to challenge him excessively” (10:6). With a ḥakham, however, emunat ḥakhamim requires us to clarify and elucidate his every word, and one who does not do so is simply a “fool who believes anything.” If this is true for Torah, then even more so for divrei reshut. “He who trusts in his own heart is a fool, but one who acts with wisdom will prevail.” 

Jared Kushner’s money from Saudi Arabia comes into sharper focus

 https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/jared-kushners-money-saudi-arabia-comes-sharper-focus-rcna70367

New York Times report from last year, which found that those responsible for helping oversee the Saudi sovereign wealth fund were, to put it mildly, highly skeptical about giving Kushner’s new firm a $2 billion investment. Those concerns were understandable: The fund’s advisers rightly noted that Trump’s son-in-law had no relevant experience, and the firm’s operations were deemed “unsatisfactory in all aspects.”

Trump offers 12-point rebuttal of bombshell classified documents tape

Fox News Former President Trump reacts to latest alleged recording about top-secret files

The Trump Audiotape Explains Why He Had to Be Stopped

 https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-trump-audiotape-explains-why-he-had-to-be-stopped/

And nobody compelled him to be so careless and stupid, either: You know who didn’t record Donald Trump showing off classified information? The federal government, that’s who. The man who agreed to that was none other than Donald Trump. And yet, with full knowledge he is being taped and full knowledge that he is about to discuss extremely classified material, he blunders onward. There is a moment in the interview, before Trump begins spilling state secrets to settle personal beefs, where he pathetically says “this is off the record,” as if one can skirt the problems with revealing classified information to acquaintances by a quick “so I can trust you guys, right?”

Trump’s version of US election law rejected once and for all

 https://edition.cnn.com/2023/06/27/politics/trump-elections-supreme-court-what-matters/index.html

The news Tuesday is that the US Supreme Court squarely rejected the fringe legal theory by which far-right activists and supporters of Trump hoped to be able to ignore election outcomes.

Republicans Need to Accept Trump Is Clearly Guilty

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/republicans-need-to-accept-trump-is-clearly-guilty?ref=home

“Ooooh, Donald Trump used the wrong fork at dinner! Hit him with life in prison,” my relative will snark. “Oh no, you didn’t see Trump use his turn signal! Give him 30 years!”

This is a pretty standard Republican take on the allegations against their party’s de facto leader: Maybe he did what he’s accused of doing, but probably he didn’t, and the prosecution is nothing but political persecution, so it shouldn’t happen regardless. The possibility of guilt goes unacknowledged or ignored outright.

Yiftach - godol hador - was an am haaetz

 Yiftach was an am haaretz.  Shabbos night I mentioned the question to Rav Malinowtiz. He said there is a machlokes amongst the commentaries as to whether Yiftach in fact sacrificed his daughter. He added that according to the view that he sacrificed his daughter he was definitely an am haaretz - He gave me two seforim Daas Mikrah and Daas Sofrim and told me to look up the Malbim and Abarbanel. And added that for such issues he usually uses Aspaklaria - which the shul didn't have and I obviously couldn't use the computer.

Anyway. Das Mikrah and Daas Sofrim both said he sacrified his daughter according to Chazal. Daas Sofrim said, "Yiftach was an am haaretz who became pious." Then I looked up the Malbim. The Malbim gave a whole drasha about how he didn't kill his daughter but ended by saying, "However the view of Chazal is the he did in fact sacrifice his daughter." I looked up Redak who gave a long derasha to say he didn't kill his daughter but ended, "But Chazal say he did sacrifice is daughter and if they have a mesora on this then it has to be accepted."

There is a gemora in Taanis (4a) that says he killed his daughter. Tanach says that he attracted to him a gang of bums. From this verse, Chazal say we see that birds of a feather flock together.

ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים, מנא הדא מילתא דאמרי אינשי מטייל ואזיל דקלא בישא לגבי קינא דשרכי... שנוי בנביאים ויתלקטו אל יפתח אנשים ריקים... (שופטים פרק יא, סו)

כי תצא מחנה על אויביך ונשמרת מכל דבר רע, שלא יהיה בכם שום ליצנות, שלא תבא לידי חיוב, ממי אתה למד, מיפתח, מה כתיב בו והוא בן אשה זונה... ובשביל שהיה בו שום של ליצנות, נפלו בו כל האוכלוסין... (תצא ג)

Aspaklaria is http://www.aspaklaria.info

Medrash Tanchuma says he was an am haaretz

כיון שבקש לקרבה היתה בוכה לפניו, אמרה לו בתו, אבי, יצאתי לקראתך בשמחה ואתה שוחט אותי, שמא כתב הקב"ה בתורה שיהו ישראל מקריבין לפני הקב"ה נפשות אדם... מן הבהמה ולא מן האדם. אמר לה, בתי נדרתי והיה היוצא, שמא כל הנודר יכול הוא שלא לשלם נדרו, אמרה ליה והרי יעקב אבינו שנדר כל אשר תתן לי וגו' (בראשית כ"ח), ונתן לו הקב"ה שנים עשר בנים, שמא הקריב להקב"ה אחד מהם, ולא עוד אלא חנה שאמרה ותדר נדר וגו' (שמואל א' א'), שמא הקריבה את בנה לפני הקב"ה, כל הדברים האלה אמרה לו ולא שמע לה. כיון שראתה שלא שמע לה, אמרה לו הניחני וארד אצל בית דין, שמא ימצאו פתח לנדרך, שנאמר הרפה ממני שנים חדשים, ואלכה וירדתי על ההרים וגו', אמר רב זכריה, וכי יש אדם יורד על ההרים, והלא בני אדם עולים להרים, אלא אלו סנהדרין, כמה שנאמר (מיכה ו') שמעו הרים את ריב ה'. הלכה אצלם ולא מצאו פתח ליפתח ולהתיר לו את נדרו, בעוון ששחט משבט אפרים, ועליו הוא אומר (משלי כ"ח) גבר רש ועושק דלים מטר סוחף ואין להם, זה יפתח שהיה רש בתורה כגרופו של שקמה, שהיה עושק את הדלים, שנאמר ויאמרו לו אמור נא שבולת וגו' והיה שוחטן, לפיכך מטר סוחף אין להם, שהיה לו מי שיתיר את נדרו, אלא ודאי ואין להם, שהעלים הקב"ה את ההלכה, שלא ימצאו פתח להתיר לו את נדרו. עלה ושחטה, ורוח הקדש צווחת נפשות הייתי רוצה שתקריב לפני, אשר לא ציויתי ולא עלתה על לבי... (בחוקתי ה)

The sources i.e. Rishonim who say he didn't sacrifice his daughter are going against Chazal. This is a clear example of what Rav Dessler has said, that those Rishonim who give an explanation contrary to Chazal are doing it as apologetics for those confused people who can't accept Chazal and as long the explanation doesn't contradict halacha is ok to do such.

Rabbeinu Chananel explicitly states he was not a ben Torah

 רבנו בחיי על ויקרא פרק כז פסוק כט

ומעתה צא ולמד טעותו של יפתח שטעה בכאן בהקריבו את בתו עולה, כי הוא חשב שכשם שמלך ישראל הנודר או המחרים דבר, חרמו או נדרו חל להמית איש או אנשים, וגם כל העובר על חרמו חייב מיתה, הוא הדין גם כן כשנודר בעת מלחמתו לעשות זבח מאיש או אנשים שיחול הנדר, ובודאי טעה בזה טעות גדול כי כשיחול חרם המלך והסנהדרין ושבועתם דוקא על המורדים בהם או על העובר על גזירתם ותקנותיהם, אבל אינו חל לעשות קרבן מדבר שאינו ראוי לקרבן, וזהו שאמרו חז"ל (בראשית רבה ס, ג) אפילו הקדש דמים לא היה חייב, ומעשה שעשה הוכיח שלא היה בן תורה:

Bottom line - the sources clearly indicate that he was an ignorant man who killed his daughter because he didn't know basic Torah halacha

Seder HaDoros notes that Yiftach's daughter was married to Cham (Noach's son) and that her father schechted her and that R Chanina ben Tradyon was a tikun for Yiftach and that his why he was burned alive.