ללא מחבר No Author

שיעורו של הרב אליהו ובר בהר הבית

צפו: על חגי מרחשון ועל הסיבה שלא חוגגים אותם

בימים הקרובים יחולו שלושה ימים טובים המוזכרים במגילת תענית • קצת על כל אחד מהמאורעות • האם יש למאורעות אלו משמעות בימינו? • למה איננו חוגגים אותם? • דברי ראש ישיבת הר הבית בבית המדרש בהר הבית • דיון מעניין מתפתח במהלך הדברים

בן למואל יום רביעי, כ”ב בחשון ה’תשע”ט

בעשרין ותלתא למרחשון אסתתר סוריגא מן עזרתא

תרגום: בעשרים ושלושה במרחשון נסתר הסורג מן העזרה

מפני שבנו שם גוים מקום, והעמידו עליו את הזונות.

וכשתקפה יד בית חשמונאי נטלוהו מהן, וסתרוהו, ומצאו שם אבנים טובות, ונמנו עליהן וגנזו אותן. והן מונחות עד היום הזה, עד שיבוא אליהו ויעיד עליהן אם טמאות הן אם טהורות.

יום שסתרוהו עשאוהו יום טוב.

בעשרין וחמשא ביה אחידת שור שמרון

תרגום: בעשרים וחמשה בו נכבשה חומת שומרון

ומה היא אחידת שמרון שורא?

מפני שכשעלתה גלות בראשונה הלכו להם למטלית של כותיים, ולא הניחום. באו לסיבסטי, וישבוה והקיפוה ערי חומה, ונסמכו להם עיירות הרבה, והיו קורין להן ערי נברכתא.

בעשרין ושבעה ביה תבת סלתא למסק על מדבחא

תרגום: בעשרים ושבעה בו שבה הסולת לעלות על המזבח

מפני שהיו הצדוקין אומרין: אוכלין מנחת בהמה.

אמר להם רבן יוחנן בן זכאי: מנין לכם? ולא היו יודעין להביא ראיה מן התורה, אלא אחד שהיה מפטפט כנגדו ואומ,ר מפני שהיה משה אוהב את אהרן, אמר אל יאכל בשר לבדו, אלא יאכל סלת ובשר, כאדם שהוא אומר לחברו ‘הילך בשר הילך רכיך’.

קרא לו רבן יוחנן בן זכאי: ויבאו אילמה ושם שתים עשרה עינות מים ושבעים תמרים

אמר לו: מה ענין זה אצל זה

אמר לו: שוטה, ולא תהא תורה שלמה שלנו כשיחה בטלה שלך והלא כבר נאמר יהיה עולה ליי ומנחתם ונסכיהם לריח ניחח אשה לה’.

מאתר חדשות הר הבית, כאן. (מקור הסרטון כאן)

The Non-Leftist View of Crime and Punishment – ‘We Do Not Show Mercy in Court’

Yosef and Mandatory Sentencing

Dec 10, 15 by R. Gil Student

I. Negotiating a Sentence

The proposed punishment to the brother caught stealing Yosef’s silver cup poses an interpretational problem whose resolution can shed light on the rabbinic attitude to mandatory minimum sentences. After being accused collectively of stealing the cup of Yosef, Pharaoh’s minister, the brothers denied the charge to Yosef’s overseer. As a challenge to the accusation, they suggested that if one of them is found to have the cup, he should die and the rest should be enslaved (Gen. 44:9). This proposal, offered in mistaken confidence that the brothers would emerge acquitted, differentiates between guilty parties. The one holding the stolen object would receive a harsher sentence than the accomplices.

The overseer replied that this is true–whoever is caught with the stolen merchandise will be enslaved and the rest will go free (v. 10). When Binyamin is caught with the cup, Yehudah proposes that all the brothers be enslaved and none executed (v. 16), thereby equating all the guilty parties. Yosef responded that Heaven forbid he should do that. Rather, just the thief would become a slave (v. 17).

This entire exchange is puzzling and has sparked numerous explanations. Why does the overseer say that the brothers are correct and then offer a different punishment? And why does Yosef reply “Heaven forbid” that he should punish all the brothers?

II. Justice and Mercy

Rashi (v. 10) says that the overseer agrees that according to the law the thief should be executed and the rest of the brothers imprisoned. The accomplices should receive a lighter sentence. However, the overseer offered a more lenient deal, that the guilty party should be enslaved and the accomplices freed.

Ramban (v. 10) explains differently. He suggests that the brothers were saying that they did not collectively steal the cup. If anyone stole it, he did it on his own, for which he should be executed. Really the others should then go free because they were not accomplices. However, they offered themselves as slaves anyway. The overseer and Yosef accepted that the thief worked alone and therefore refused to punish the other brothers even a little. “Heaven forbid” that they should punish the innocent brothers.

According to Rashi–Ramban asks–why did Yosef say “Heaven forbid”? After all, he offered a deal to lessen the punishment. Why would it be so terrible if he enforced the actual punishment? And why did the overseer tell the brothers that they are right if he then offers a different proposal?

III. Mandatory Minimum Sentencing

Rav Yitzchak Arama (Akeidas Yitzchak, no. 30) challenges these questions. Showing mercy is godly, an act following in the divine footsteps. Even though God established rules with which to guide the world, He shows mercy and refrains from fully punishing those who violate the rules. “Heaven forbid” that Yosef would impose the actual sentence and refuse to show mercy to the thief. Of course he and his overseer would offer lesser sentences than called for by law.

Rav Yosef Shaul Nathanson (Divrei Shaul, v. 17) disagrees with Rav Arama. A judge cannot show favoritism or set aside the required sentence. Doing so would cause chaos by draining the laws of their deterrent effect. However, this only applies to general violations. In this case, the brothers were shown to have stolen from Yosef and therefore Yosef–as the victim–could choose to refrain from pressing charges or to request a lesser sentence. However, had the offense been against someone else, a government official would have no right to lighten the punishment.

Rav Nathanson’s objections represent the conservative response to activist judges who undermine laws by lightening sentences of convicted criminals. Rav Arama expects merciful judges to impose lightened sentences. In sharp contrast, Rav Nathanson demands mandatory minimum sentencing, removing the judge’s mercy from the sentencing decision.

IV. Talmudic Precedent

Some might be tempted to suggest that Rav Arama was following the Sages of the Talmud. After all, the Mishnah (Makos 7a) contains a famous debate over the extreme hesitance of various Sages to execute a criminal. Indeed, Rav Nathanson quotes Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel’s denunciation of the other Sages as murderers for refusing to execute deserving criminals.

However, while the Sages believed in minimizing executions, they did not include mercy as a consideration. Procedural issues determine when execution should be imposed. For example, judges must ask whether witnesses properly warned the criminal and must interrogate the witnesses for strict consistency. The subjective opinion of the judge and the composure of the criminal do not play a role in the decision. Even a penitent criminal must be punished.

Additionally, the Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilkhos Rotzei’ach 2:4-5) explains that even when a court acquits a murderer for procedural or evidentiary reasons, a king or court may still punish the perpetrator for deterrent effect.1 Mercy is a fundamental Jewish value. But mercy must be showered primarily on potential future victims by protecting them from harm.

  1. See also the glosses of Maharatz Chajes to Makos 7a.

From Torah Musings, here.

Jews Who Shmad Themselves Can Still Do Teshuvah! (Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, Narrated)

WHEN A JEW BECOMES A CHRISTIAN (Reply2 one for israel maoz tbn jewish voice messianic jews for jesus

Published on Oct 2, 2018

WHEN A JEW BECOMES A CHRISTIAN – A New Video written by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, z”l and narrated by Daniel Ventresca, Senior Volunteer, Jews for Judaism.

For the Jew, accepting Christianity involved much more than merely accepting a false Messiah. Aside from its belief in Jesus as the Messiah, Christianity has altered many of the most fundamental concepts of Judaism. Here, we explore the Halachic consequences of a Jew who embraces Christianity.

JEWS FOR JUDAISM is an international organization dedicated to countering the multi-million dollar efforts of Christian missionary groups that target Jews, the impact of cults and eastern religions, and the growing rate of intermarriage that is devastating the Jewish community. JEWS FOR JUDAISM achieves its goal through FREE educational programs, materials and counseling services that connect Jewish people to the spiritual depth, beauty and wisdom of Judaism and keeps Jews Jewish. Please contact us if we can help you. www.jewsforjudaism.ca

WHEN A JEW BECOMES A CHRISTIAN (Reply2 one for israel maoz messianic jews for jesus евреи за иисуса)

From YouTube, here.

How the Economic School of ‘Do Not Steal from One Another’ Will Win

Have Hope: Our Opponents Are Economic Imbeciles.

Gary North – January 05, 2016

I have never had a lot of patience. I suppose this is one of my character flaws.

I do not suffer fools lightly. I suppose this is another one of my character flaws.

I use strong rhetoric to deal with economic imbeciles. I do not regard this as one of my character flaws. I regard it as one of my strengths.

ECONOMIC IMBECILES

All around us are economic imbeciles. We find them in the major university economics departments. We find them on the financial media sites. We certainly find them in Congress. Above all, we find them on the Federal Open Market Committee. These people believe that a government committee, filled with tenured bureaucrats, is better equipped to solve economic problems than the competitive free market is, where people have their own money on the line.

They really are economic imbeciles. They may have IQ’s that got them through college or graduate school. But, in their understanding of cause and effect, they are imbeciles. They do not understand that they are imbeciles. They preach to the choirs that surround them.

Why do economic imbeciles get a hearing? Because voters desperately want to justify the fact that they have used the state, and especially the federal government, to confiscate wealth from each other. They want to believe in their hearts that they are doing the morally right thing by sending out a thug with a badge and a gun, who tells the hapless citizen to fork over his money, or he will go to jail. We have an entire political and economic system which rests ultimately on this threat.

Anyone who falls intellectually for this kind of immorality is not a reliable judge of much of anything. When this person goes looking for an expert opinion to justify the fact that he is a thief, he is likely to find that only third-rate logicians, who cannot follow the chain of reasoning, are going to come forward in the name of organized theft.

It starts with a moral problem. It starts with a violation of the commandment not to steal. We have a modern civilization that is built on a systematic violation of this commandment.

The overwhelming majority of voters today are convinced that the present economic order in no way violates this principle. Virtually all of the pastors in the pulpits are convinced of this. They don’t preach against the organized theft of modern Keynesianism. They don’t think it’s part of their calling to point out the obvious ethical implications of the system of government that compels people to support other people, merely because the other people don’t want to go out and get a job.

Or maybe other people do want to go out and get a job, but they find competition from outside the country difficult to deal with. So, they call upon economic imbeciles to justify their desire by establishing trade barriers against imported goods. Fortunately, on this particular issue, there are a limited number of economic imbeciles with any influence, and there have not been many since the early 19th century. From Adam Smith until Murray Rothbard, economists who understand cause and effect have been opposed to trade barriers. So, those people who feel that they have a right to keep foreigners from competing against them have to appeal to economic imbeciles who cannot think straight.

I suppose I shouldn’t use strong rhetoric. The phrase “economic imbeciles” is strong rhetoric. The problem is this: these people really are economic imbeciles. They literally cannot follow cause-and-effect and economic analysis. This is why they don’t like Austrian school economics. This is why most of them favor central banking. This is why they favor government intervention into the economy. Their instinctive reaction to every problem is to get the government to pass a law, set up a bureaucracy, and send out people with badges and guns to tell other people what to do. It is a way of life for these people. It is also a way of life for the court economists who are on government payrolls in tax-funded universities.

BAD ETHICS AND PAINFUL OUTCOMES

If there were no built-in self-destruct arrangements in the very character, meaning moral character, of the institutions of organized theft, then I don’t think we could win the battle. If it were simply a matter of good arguments driving out bad arguments, I don’t think we could win this thing. Self-interest really is dominant. That is what economic analysis teaches, and I believe this principle.

But self-interest on behalf of organized theft is misplaced. Built into the creation, and built into the free market economy, are a series of poison pills. When individuals use violence or the threat of violence to interfere with market processes, they don’t look at the long-term consequences of these interferences. Somewhere down the road, there is going to be hell to pay. There is going to be a great default. There is going to be something that disrupts the lives of those voters, as well as their victims, who vote in favor of the expansion of governments into the lives of citizens.

The defenders of organized theft deny that there are these built-in negative sanctions against any society that follows these practices, but, as I’ve said, the defenders are economic imbeciles.

If incorrect ideas and bad ethics did not produce bad results, the case for liberty would never get off the ground. People would simply ignore the arguments. But, there really are built-in negative sanctions that will produce disasters in those societies that extend the influence and power of civil government into market processes. The public will be astounded when these sanctions arrive. Millions of voters are going to go looking for answers. In that period of confusion, consternation, and enormous capital losses, which is going to destroy the dreams and schemes of generations of complacent thieves, the thieves are going to want to know how this happened.

I think the success of the movie, The Big Short, is indicative of the opportunity that lies ahead. The movie does not talk about the Federal Reserve System, but it certainly talks about the bankers, greed, and the fact that the government did nothing to protect the victims. When the really big short takes place, defenders of liberty will have an opportunity to enter the competitive arena of ideas. We will have this advantage: we are not economic imbeciles. We can follow cause and effect. We can express these ideas without resorting to arcane formulas. We can actually speak in English. Most of our opponents do not have this ability. They cannot make themselves understood by the general public.

A BATTLE OF SLOGANS

The Keynesians have no equivalent of this slogan: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” This is a powerful slogan. So is this one: “You can’t get something for nothing.” So is this one: “If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.” So is this one: “Honesty is the best policy.” But, above all others, we have this one: “Thou shalt not steal.”

The Keynesians have this slogan: “I’m from the government, and I’m here to help you.” The entire case for Keynesianism is based on this slogan.

This is why it pays to defend freedom. Even when the overwhelming majority of voters do not want to hear the arguments, we should keep making them. We should keep pointing out that there will be horrendous negative repercussions for violations of the principle of voluntary exchange. We don’t get a hearing, except during crises. I have good news. There will be plenty of crises in which we will get a hearing.

From Gary North, here.

האם מותר לצרוך סמים לשם תענוג? הרב אמנון יצחק: לא

ש”י ✔ מפתיע? האם מותר לעשן גראס שלא לצורך רפואי | הרב אמנון יצחק

Published on Aug 14, 2018

צדיק האמת הרב אמנון יצחק נשאל האם מותר להשתמש בקנאביס לשימוש אישי שלא קשור למחלות?
למי שרוצה לראות את ההרצאה המלאה ממנה לקוח קטע וידיאו זה – שילחץ כאן
https://www.shofar.tv/lectures/1186

מאתר יוטיוב, כאן.