UTJ proposes Basic Law to equate Torah studies with IDF service

 https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/politics-and-diplomacy/article-752379

The ultra-Orthodox United Torah Judaism Party (UTJ) proposed on Tuesday a Basic Law aimed at anchoring in law the exemption from IDF military service for students in religious academies (yeshivot).

The first clause of the bill, called Basic Law: Torah Study, says, "Torah study is a supreme value in the heritage of the Jewish people."

The second clause says, "The State of Israel as a Jewish state views the encouragement of Torah study and Torah students with utmost important, and regarding their rights and duties, those who dedicate themselves to studying Torah for an extended period should be viewed as having served a significant service to the State of Israel and the Jewish people."

Grassley faces criticism over release of FBI document

 https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4119251-grassley-faces-criticism-over-release-of-fbi-document/

But that has in no way calmed the waters as Democrats increase their attacks over what they view as unsubstantiated claims that were already dismissed in full by the Trump administration.

Rav Reuven Feinstein proposes a Takanah - How does it deal with the disaster of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter?

This letter was written as an approval of the 3rd Baltimore bais din letter and is clearly critical of the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter though it doesn't mention it.

Rav Reuven makes several important points. 

1) that a takanah should be made that no one is allowed to get involved in a case when there's a reputable bais din presiding on a case, otherwise the koach of bais din gets diminished and causes anarchy.

Meaning that since the Baltimore Beis Din was already dealing with the case.  The Kaminetsky Beis Din had no right to get involved and usurp its right to deal with the case. To prevent this from happening in the future a Takana needs to be made and agreed by the rabbonim not to take over cases that are already being dealt with by a competent beis din

2) that no letter should be signed without listening to both sides.

This again is a criticism of the high handed tactics of Rav Kaminetsky (that was endorsed by a letter by Rav Herschel Schachter) and the Kaminetsky Beis Din which issued a false seruv and demanded that Aharon give a get and called for demonstrations against Aharon -- without hearing his side of the story and furthermore directly contradicting the ruling of the Baltimore Beis Din that there was no requirement for Aharon to give a Get at that time

3) that in this case only the Baltimore bais din has the full picture.

This again is a direct criticism of the Kaminetsky and the Kaminetsky Beis Din - which only heard Tamar's side of the story. It is a refutation of the Greenblatt heter - which was based on a phony psychiatric report written by a therapist who did not speak to Aharon on the allegations of Tamar. It is also a criticism of the  Kaminetskys who went heter shopping with a letter which contained false and distorted information which did not seek out Aharon's perspective on events - which they ran around the world to find poskim who would agree to it. Finally getting Rav Greenblatt and Rav Feurst to agree to the heter - even though neither consulted the Baltimore Beis Din but relied entirely on the lies and distortions provided by the Kaminetskys

========================================================
Questions regarding Rav Reuven Feinstein's proposal (by a number of readers)

1) Why is there a need of a Takana when what he is proposing is stated in the Shulchan Aruch?

שולחן ערוך חושן משפט הלכות דיינים סימן יז סעיף ה

אסור לדיין לשמוע דברי בעל דין האחד שלא בפני בעל דין חבירו. הגה: ודוקא שיודע הדיין שיהיה דיין בדבר, אבל אם שמע טענת האחד ואחר כך נתרצה השני לדון לפניו, מותר להיות דיין בדבר (תשובת מהרי"ל קצ"ה). ולא יכתוב שום חכם פסק לאחד מבעלי הדינין בדרך א"כ, או שיכתוב לו דעתו בלא פסק, כל זמן שלא שמע דברי שניהם, שמא מתוך דבריו ילמדו לשקר; גם משום שאח"כ יטעון השני בדרך אחר ויצטרך לכתוב להיפך, ואיכא זילותא לחכם. (רשב"א וריב"ש סימן קע"ט /ה'/). וכן הבעל דין מוזהר על כך. ותלמיד שיש לו דין לפני רבו, לא יקדים לבא קודם בעל דינו, שלא יהא נראה כמקדים כדי לסדר טענותיו שלא בפני חבירו. ואם יש לו עת קבוע לבא ללמוד לפניו, ובא העת ההיא, מותר.

2) While Rav Reuven obviously means well his proposal, he ironically undermines the beis din system. It is a letter calling for total hefkerus!

a. If a duly constituted BD ruled—it should be over. Of course that BD should be supported in every which way.

b. Acccording to what he writes anyone can now say—and if so, you can be sure that anyone will now say—if they on one party’s “side”—that the BD’s pesak “is a din me’uvas”!

c. It is illogical to call for any person who wants to help when there is already a pesak BD to first hear both sides— that is what the BD did! Why would this person do a better job than the BD? How will this person ensure that HE will “hear “all the facts” from “all the parties”...? And if he comes to a different conclusion—he should help defy the BD?

3. Let’s be clear---The problem with the false seruv in the Epstein case was that it was anything BUT a duly-constituted BD!! But if it is a duly constituted BD?Absolutely support the pesak—or you are part of the evil!

4. The basic issue is that if you refuse to mention that there is a current problem then you need to pretend that the system itself needs fixing instead of the particular incident

מדור מגן וצנה Letters regarding Tamar Epstein's Heter

   מדור מגן וצנה Letters regarding Tamar Epstein's Heter 

Rabbi Yechezkel Roth zt"l

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yechezkel_Roth

He was the leader of a venerated Bais Horaah in Borough Park, Brooklyn, and is one of leading Poskim in the world.[7]

Fox Insiders Shudder at Gutfeld’s Latest Holocaust Controversy: ‘Yikes’

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/fox-news-star-greg-gutfeld-under-fire-for-disgusting-holocaust-remarks?ref=home?ref=home

A spokesperson for the ADL, additionally, noted that while it wasn’t exactly clear what Gutfeld was actually suggesting on Monday, it seemed apparent that he didn’t have a full grasp of the facts.

“It is not clear from Gutfeld’s comments if he is arguing that Jews learned skills in the Holocaust, or that Jews who had skills had a better chance of staying alive. The latter is something that is well-documented, while the former is nonsense. That said, many millions of Jews, who, in Gutfeld’s words, had “utility,” were still murdered,” the spokesperson told The Daily Beast.

HaRav Feinstein - Avoiding inappropriate humility

Igros Moshe (Y.D. 1:101): My dear friend you ask how is it possible to rely on new views such as I have expressed, in particular when they are against certain achronim? Do you think that there is an end and limitation – G‑d forbid! – to Torah? Do you think that contemporary halachic decisors can only express the views that have previously been published? Do you feel that if a question comes up that has not been previously discussed and published in a book - that we should not issue an opinion - even though we understand the issue and are capable of expressing an opinion? In my humble opinion it is prohibited to say such a thing. There is no question that it is still possible for Torah to expand and develop even in our times. Therefore there is an obligation for all those who are competent to make halachic decisions, to rule on all matters that come to them to the best of their ability after solid research in the Talmud and poskim with the use of clear reasoning and proper proof. Even if this results in something new which has not been previously been discussed in the halachic works. Furthermore even if this has been previously been discussed, there is no question that a posek needs to understand it fully and to clarify it in his mind before he issues a ruling. He should not issue a ruling simply because he saw an authoritative source expressing such an opinion. This is the same as poskening mechanically from one’s notes that the gemora (Sotah 22a) condemns: Tanaim who teach halacha from their notes [without paying attention to the reasons behind them] destroy the world (see Rashi). Even if these rulings are occasionally against the views of Achronim - so what? There is no question that we have the right to disagree with Achronim and also sometimes against particular views of certain Rishonim when we have clear-cut analysis and especially also correct reasons. On such matters our Sages (Bava Basra 131a) say, “A judge can only rely on what he sees” [see the gemora with the Rashbam]. This ability to disagree is in those situations where the ruling doesn’t go against the well known decisors of the Shulchan Aruch whose views have been accepted everywhere. On a related matter it is said, “They have left us room to be creative.” This is in fact the approach of the majority of the responsa literature of the Achronim when they decide practical halachic issues. However one should not be arrogant in making halachic rulings and it is necessary to show restraint as much as possible. However in a situation of great need and surely in a situation where a woman is an agunah as in our present case – there is no question that we are obligated to make ruling when it seems that we have the basis for a permissive judgment. Furthermore it is prohibited for us to have humility and cause a Jewish woman to remain an agunah or to cause someone to violate a prohibition or even to cause someone to lose money. Study Gittin (56a) where it says that the humility of R’ Zechariya ben Avkulas caused the Temple to be destroyed. Why does the gemora blame his humility? What does this have to do with his humility? Study the Mahretz Chajes who gives a proper explanation to the matter. This is truly in agreement with what I have said. Therefore we are forced to make halachic rulings in practice when we have convincing proofs and clear understanding and especially in cases of agunah such as this. We need to remove the pitfalls.

Tamar Epstein's heter: Rav Yechezkeil Roth posuls Rav Greenblatt as posek and Mesader Kiddushin and Gittin

 http://yudelstake.blogspot.com/2023/07/reb-dovid-feinstein-zl-paskened-that.html?m=1

Showering During the Nine Days

 https://www.ohr.edu/this_week/insights_into_halacha/5228

This ‘Shower Exclusion’ during the Nine Days for hygienic purposes is ruled decisively by the vast majority of contemporary authorities including Rav Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld zt”l, Rav Yechiel Michel Tukachinsky zt”l, Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l, Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach zt”l, Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l, the Klausenberger Rebbe zt”l, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv zt”l, Rav Shmuel Halevi Wosner zt”l, Rav Ben Tzion Abba Shaul zt”l, Rav Ovadiah Yosef zt”l, Rav Mordechai Eliyahu zt”l, Rav Yisrael Halevi Belsky zt”l, Rav Efraim Greenblatt zt”l, the Sha’arim Metzuyanim B’Halachah, and Rav Moshe Sternbuch.[16]

Likud minister demands Attorney General investigate Ehud Barak

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/374649

Regev explained, "In the aforementioned video clip, former Prime Minister Ehud Barak was recorded detailing his plan in a Zoom conversation with a group of protest activists." She added that the plan included "inciting civil disobedience in an intentional fashion, falsely presenting a danger to democracy with funding and investments totaling millions of shekels, leading to the point of no return - a civil war - as he begs them to create clashes with the police, saying, 'The more clashes there are with the police, the more it will grow stronger.'"

For a Solution to Israel's Turmoil, Go Back to the Beginning

 https://www.newsweek.com/solution-israels-turmoil-go-back-beginning-opinion-1814995

Indeed, it seems clear that no one has a long-term solution to this problem—and if this government falls, the next one can pass legislation overturning this new law, since the Knesset can change both how its Supreme Court Justices are selected and what matters the court can adjudicate at any time.

The answer to all this is in front of us: Israel needs a written constitution that cannot be changed by the Knesset.

Golden Calf reason for having children

 Zohar (1 61a )If Israel had not sinned by making the golden calf, they would not have borne children and no new generations would have come into the world” R. Abba replied: ‘If Adam had not sinned, he would not have begotten children from the side of the evil inclination, but he would have borne offspring from the side of the holy spirit. But now, since all the children of men are born from the side of the evil inclination, they have no permanence and are but short-lived, because there is in them an element of the “other side”. But if Adam had not sinned and had not been driven from the Garden of Eden, he would have begotten progeny from the side of the holy spirit-a progeny holy as the celestial angels, who would have endured to eternity, after the supernal pattern. Since, however, he sinned and begat children outside the Garden of Eden, these did not take root, even in this world, until Noah arose, who was a righteous man and entered the ark, so that from the ark there went forth all the future generations of mankind, who spread thence into the four quarters of the earth.’ 

Gantz: Everything approved today will be canceled and erased from the statute book

 https://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/gantz-everything-approved-today-will-be-canceled-and-erased-from-the-book-of-laws/

In a statement to the media, Benny Gantz says extremists have won and the State of Israel has lost in today’s vote.

“A majority in the Knesset that wants agreements was defeated by extreme MKs who decided to change our identity, who want to take us to an abyss of hatred, to divide us, and to turn us against each other.”

“Those who think they won today will soon find this was a grave mistake for us all,” he says.

Olmert to British TV: We are going into a civil war now - nonsense!

 https://www.israelnationalnews.com/news/374625

Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert claimed on Monday that the country faces civil war following the approval in the Knesset of the bill reducing the use of the reasonableness standard.

“There is a threat. It is a serious threat. It’s never happened before, and we are going into a civil war now,” Olmert said in an interview with Britain’s Channel 4.