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.
Wednesday, February 7, 2024
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."
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
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.
Severe Mental anguish is considered Pikuach Nefesh
Mordechai Shabbos (424): A sick person who says that he needs to eat on Yom Kippur but the doctor says that it is not necessary. R”i bar Sholom explains that all the cases in the gemora where the choleh says it is necessary is to be understand to mean that it appears to choleh that he will die if they don’t feed him because he thinks that he is in a life threatening condition. There are also commentaries which write concerning the matter of Rav Yannai where the choleh says necessary where it is understood that it talking about possible life threatening circumstances….
Mordechai Shabbos (424) All the cases which are brought in the gemora, our Sages were experts in medicine and they knew these cases were life threatening such as lighting a candle when a blind women requested it, or breaking down the door when a child was locked in. It would therefore seem that we are not considered experts in the issue of when to feed a choleh while the choleh is. Therefore if the choleh says that his life is not endangered if he doesn’t eat - it is prohibited to feed him. This is the same for the question of profaning Shabbos to save someone. For example Avoda Zara (28b) states that if an eye is severely tearing it is permitted to put medicine in it on Shabbos. The gemora explains that this is permitted because there is a connection between the eye and the heart and thus it is life threatening. Consequently if the only concern is for the loss of the eye but we don’t consider it to be life threatening - it would not be permitted to put the medicine in the eye on Shabbos.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Rabbeinu Tam has issued permissive rulings in actual cases even when it is not life threatening. This is what he said: Are the sick people prophets or experts in medicine [that we rely on their judgment to permit violating Shabbos or Yom Kippur]? The fact of the matter is that since the sick person or one who recently gave birth is aware that it is Shabbos or Yom Tov and nevertheless says they need to eat or have Shabbos profaned for them – that means they are not able to bear the pain and discomfort which results from their condition. That is why we feed them on Yom Kippur. And this is true even if they are not in life threating conditions.
Rabbeinu Tam For example, how do we consider that being bitten by a mad dog is life threatening or the case of Rav Ashi and Mar Zutra (Kesubos 61a)? Therefore even though the majority of sick people will recover but nevertheless we are lenient when there is even a possibility of danger or severe mental illness (tiruf daas). The expression “that they are going to die” should not confuse you because that is the expression used by the Talmud and you would want to know then what does “a possibility of death mean.” In fact when the Talmud talks about the concern that these people will die it is not to be taken literally. The term death in these cases is a fear that the person will get sick or deteriorate in some way. This understanding is obviously correct. Thus if the sick person asks to eat or drink it is permitted to feed him or give him drink because the lack of food causes him pains in the heart and because of that he will faint and there are times he won’t recover. Thus even there is only the loss of a limb, I would call it a danger and would therefore permit Shabbos to be profaned.
Rabbeinu Tam We also see this concerning an injury to the interior of the body where the majority of such cases do not die and similarly the case of pregnant women who smell food - we see that they don’t die and yet we are permitted to feed them. Consequently all cases which involve a lost to the body or loss to a limb or embryo is a danger. We learn this from the case of the mother who recently gave birth or a pregnant woman or someone who is bled and becomes chilled – that it is permitted to make a fire even during the summer even though we have no concern that they will die from this condition So if Shmuel who was a doctor as well as the Sages who were familiar to some degree about medicine and they said that an individual is knowledgeable about his own suffering. So if they literally meant dying that means that all men are experts in this matter for themselves and the statement can’t be reversed. But in fact even if a person screamed out - that he wasn’t going to die from this condition that we have evaluated that he can’t bear – it is permitted ignore him to profane Shabbos according to our judgment….
מרדכי (שבת תסד): חולה אומר צריך ורופא אומר [תסד] אינו צריך ר"י בר שלמה היה מפרש כל האי צריך דשמעתא שנראה לו שימות אם לא יאכילוהו דסבור להסתכן בכך וגם יש ספרים שכתבו אמילתא דר' ינאי חולה אומר צריך כו' עד פשיטא ספק נפשות הוא מהו דתימא איבעותי מיבעית סבר אי לא אכיל מיית קא משמע לן וכל הני דמייתי בגמרא הם היו בקיעים ברפואות וידעו שהיה סכנה בדבר כגון הדלקת נר ושבירת דלת לתינוק ונראה דאין אנו בקיאין בענין האכילה כמו החולה ואם אמר החולה לא אסתכן בכך למות אם לא אוכל אסור להאכילו ודכוותה לענין חילול שבת תדע מדאמרינן [ע"ז (כח:)] גבי עין שמרדה מותר לכוחלה בשבת ומפרש משום דשורייני דעינא בלבא תליין אבל משום איבוד העין לא ור"ת נחלק עליו והורה הלכה למעשה להיתר וזה לשונו וכי חולים נביאים הם או בקיאים הם אך כיון שיודע החולה או החיה שהוא שבת או יום כפורים ואומר צריך ואינו יכול לסבול מחמת החולי מאכילין אותו ואפילו סבורים החולים שאינן מסוכנין שהיכן מצינו סכנה לנשיכת כלב שוטה למות או כההיא דרב אשי ומר זוטרא [כתובות סא.] ואע"פ שרוב חולים לחיים הקילו בפיקוחם מספק וכן בטירוף דעת ולישנא דמיית אל יטעך שכן לשון התלמוד דא"כ דדייקת לישנא מאי ספק נפשות אלא האי מיית שמתירא לחלות ולהתקלקל ודבר פשוט הוא שאם שואל לאכול או לשתות שמותר להאכילו ולהשקותו כי חסרון האוכל מכאיב הלב ומתוך כך הוא מתעלף ופעמים אינו מתרפא ואפילו דאבון אחד מאיבריו אני קירא בו סכנה ומחללין עליו את השבת כדאמר גבי מכה של חלל אע"פ שרובן אינם מתים בכך וכן עוברות המריחות אנו רואין שאינן מתות והתירו להאכילן אלא כל חסרון הגוף וחסרון אבר ועובר סכנה הוא צא ולמד מחיה ועוברה ומקיז דם ונצטנן שהתירו לעשות מדורה להם אפילו בימות החמה אע"פ שאינו סבור למות בכך ואם שמואל רופא היה ג"כ חכמים ידעו ברפואות קצת ואמרו לב יודע מרת נפשו ואם מיתה דוקא כל אדם בקיאים בכך וחזור בך מלהפוכי מימרא אלא אפילו עומד וצוח שלא ימות כיון שאנו אומדים אותו [שאינו יכול לסבול] מותר ונפלא בעיני רבי אבי"ה שפסק אפילו בדאבון אבר אחד שיש להשיב עליו מעין שמרדה ובתלמוד מפרש:
Tuesday, February 6, 2024
Disqus has been removed
Comments should no longer involve Disqus
It should be possible to make a comment by clicking comment linkat bottom
Comments made through Disqus will not be displayed
Monday, February 5, 2024
Russian Media Hypes Tucker Carlson Visit: 'Americans Are in Shock'
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-media-hypes-tucker-carlson-visit-americans-are-shock-1866743
On Thursday, Russian news outlet Mash reported that Carlson had been spotted recently at various places around Moscow, including a visit to the Bolshoi Theater. While Carlson himself has yet to comment on the visit or confirm the reason for the visit, many have speculated that he might be there to interview Russian President Vladimir Putin for his current series, which he shares directly to X, the platform previously known as Twitter. Carlson has, in the past, frequently shared stances that were complimentary or supportive of Putin and Russia, especially amid its invasion of Ukraine, with some opponents accusing him of echoing Russian government propaganda.
Friday, February 2, 2024
The Taylor Swift ‘Psyop’
One internet pundit has posted a video, with hundreds of thousands of views, claiming that Ms. Swift’s relationship with Mr. Kelce is a fake “psyop.” This yarn involves the CIA, because of course, as well as George Soros, because of course. The story is that the Super Bowl on Feb. 11 will be rigged so that the Chiefs win in a dramatic fashion. Ms. Swift and Mr. Kelce will get engaged. That way they’ll be at peak influence to cut a joint October ad for Mr. Biden.
Former Trump Advisor Praises Joe Biden's Economy: 'I Was Wrong'
https://www.newsweek.com/former-trump-advisor-praises-joe-biden-economy-i-was-wrong-1866232
"Today we learned that the U.S. economy grew 3.1 percent over the past year while adding another 2.7 million jobs, and with core inflation moving back down towards the pre-pandemic benchmark," Biden said in a statement last week. "As a result, wages, wealth, and employment are higher now than they were before the pandemic. That's good news for American families and American workers. That is three years in a row of growing the economy from the middle out and the bottom up on my watch."
Commenting on the new GDP data on January 25, Kudlow said: "If I were he, I would be bragging about it too."
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)