אמונת חכמים דומה לאמונה ברופאים
אמונת חכמים – שיעורו של הרה”ג ר’ אברהם ציטרין שליט”א
Reprinted with permission.
Reprinted with permission.
ואין שום סתירה מגמרא סנהדרין ק”ז א’:
דרש רבא מאי דכתיב לך לבדך חטאתי והרע בעיניך עשיתי למען תצדק בדברך תזכה בשפטך אמר דוד לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא גליא וידיעא קמך דאי בעיא למכפייה ליצרי הוה כייפינא אלא אמינא דלא לימרו עבדא זכי למריה.
By Jessica Purkiss and Mateen Arian
The Bureau of Investigative Journalism
June 6, 2019
Amina was calling from the Afghan province of Wardak, where she brought up their children while he worked over the border in Iran to support them. She told him that soldiers were raiding their village. Some of them were speaking English. Amina was told to turn off her phone but Masih asked her not to – how would he know they were ok?
The call ended with Masih saying he would call again when things had calmed. But at 9 am, when he dialed his wife’s number, her phone was off. He tried again at 9.30am. Still off. Through the whole of that day and the next, he repeatedly called. But Amina’s phone remained off.
It took another day for him to learn the truth. Relatives avoided his calls or gave vague replies to his questions until finally, his brother broke the news. “He tried to avoid telling me the whole story, but I insisted that he tell me the truth,” Masih recalled in a wavering voice. “He told me to have patience in God – no one is left.”
An airstrike on Masih’s house had killed his wife and all his seven children, alongside four young cousins. His youngest child was just four years old.
In the following weeks, as grief consumed Masih, so did an intense need for answers. Who had killed his family and why?
His journey to find out would last more than eight months, pit him against military and government officials, and see him face obfuscation and denials. It would lead him to work alongside the Bureau and journalists from The New York Times, putting together a puzzle piece by piece. Ultimately it would lead to one definitive conclusion – the US military had dropped the fatal bomb.
His story is one window into the struggles faced by families across Afghanistan every day. Airstrikes are raining down on the country, with US and Afghan operations now killing more civilians than the insurgency for the first time in a decade. But getting confirmation of who has carried out a fatal strike is often impossible. An apology, or any form of public accountability, is even harder to obtain.
The US denied repeatedly that it had bombed Masih’s house, or even that any airstrike in his area had taken place. But using satellite imagery, photos, and open source content, we proved that denial false. Following our investigation, the military has now admitted that it did conduct a strike in that location, but it still denies it resulted in civilian deaths.
A happy life destroyed
“Prior to my house being bombed, I had a normal life. I was married, had four daughters and three sons,” Masih told our reporter in Kabul. “Our life was full of love.”
Masih was the head teacher in a local school run by a Swedish organisation before financial issues forced him to seek employment in construction in Iran in 2014. He still reminisces about his days in the village of Mullah Hafiz, where he split his time between farming, teaching, and his children. “We were so happy,” he says.
Exactly what happened on the day of the strike is not clear. Villagers say that overnight on September 22 2018, bombs were dropped in Mullah Hafiz, which lies in a Taliban-controlled area. The same night, they said, soldiers carried out a raid on the village as part of an operation on a Taliban prison, which was about 200 metres away from Masih’s house. One of the villagers said Taliban fighters had fired on the soldiers from some civilian homes.
A cousin of Masih’s told us he and other male relatives were taken away and detained, alongside some other villagers. At some point the next morning, a strike hit Masih’s house. When his relatives returned, they found the building flattened. In the rubble were the bodies of Amina, the seven children, and their four cousins, they say.
Masih’s children were aged between four and 14 years old; his wife Amina was 32. The cousins, all girls, were aged from 10 to 16.
From Lewrockwell.com, here.
עישון לנשים האם מותר או אסור? ואם אסור בפרהסיא בבית האם יש בעיה ליד הבעל?
שלום רב,
כבר כתב הגר”ע יוסף זצ”ל, שהנשים בארץ ישראל בזמן הזה לא נהגו לעשן כלל, ואין זה מדרכי בנות ישראל הצנועות. ומדבריו קצת נראה שעיקר הבעיה היא בזה שאישה מעשנת בפרהסיא. אלא שכמובן צריך להזכיר שדעת הרופאים בזמנינו שהעישון מזיק מאוד לבריאות, ומביא לידי מחלות קשות, ומסכן את חיי האדם, ושומר נפשו ירחק מזה.
מקורות: דברי הגר”ע יוסף זצ”ל נמצאים בספרו טהרת הבית חלק ב’ (מהדורת תשע”ט עמוד קלו). וכיוצא בזה כתב בשו”ת יצחק ירנן חלק ב’ (חלק יורה דעה סימן ו). ואמנם ראה בשו”ת תשובות והנהגות חלק א’ (סימן תנו) שסובר, שאישה שמעשנת, יש חשש שעוברת על איסור תורה של “לא יהיה כלי גבר על אישה”, ושלפי זה גם בבית אסור לה לעשן. אכן בשו”ת שערי יושר חלק ג’ (חלק יורה דעה סימן יא אות ב) העלה, שאין איסור “לא יהיה כלי גבר על אישה” באישה שמעשנת סגריות, אלא שמאחר שהוא מעשה פריצות ושחצנות גדול לאישה לעשן סיגריות, על כן היא צריכה להתרחק מזה מאוד. ושלכן אם היא רוצה לעשן סיגריות בצינעה כדי להרגיע את העצבים, אין בזה בעיה של פריצות. וע”ע בשו”ת ישכיל עבדי חלק ו’ (חלק אבן העזר סימן א) ובשו”ת ויצבור יוסף חלק א’ (סימן עא) ובספר טהרת יום טוב חלק ט’ (עמוד פב) במכתבו של הגר”י שטייף זצ”ל, ובשו”ת באר משה חלק ד’ (סימן עה).
בברכה,
הלל מאירס
Examples of government control over social and economic life are as old as recorded history, and they always have features that are universal in their perverse effects regardless of time or place. One of the most famous of these collectivist episodes was that of the Incas and their empire in South America.
The Inca Empire emerged out of a small tribe in the Peruvian mountains in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Theirs was a military theocracy. The Inca kings rationalized their brutal rule on the basis of a myth that the Sun god, Inti, took pity on the people in those mountains and sent them his son and other relatives to teach them how to build homes and how to manufacture rudimentary products of everyday life. The later Inca rulers then claimed that they were the descendants of these divine beings and therefore were ordained to command and control all those who came under their power and authority
The fourteenth and especially the fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries saw the expansion of the Incas into a great imperial power with control over a territory that ran along the west coast of South America and included much of present-day Peru, Ecuador, Bolivia, Chile, and parts of Argentina and Colombia. The Incas were brought down in the 1530s by the Spanish conquest under the leadership of Francisco Pizarro.
The Inca kings, asserting to be both sons and priests of the Sun god, held mastery of all the people and property in his domains. And like most socialist systems throughout history they combined both privilege and egalitarianism. When the invading Spaniards entered the Inca capital of Cuzco, they were amazed by the grandeur of the palaces, temples, and homes of the Inca elite, as well as the system of aqueducts and paved roads.
But having an economy based on slave labor, there had been few incentives or profitable gains from the development of machines and tools to raise the productivity of the work force or reduce the amount of labor needed to perform the tasks of farming and manufacturing. Methods of production were generally primitively labor-intensive. Thus, the Spaniards, in comparison, were far better equipped with more advanced instruments of war to defeat the Incas.
The Inca rulers imposed on almost all in society a compulsory equalitarianism in virtually all things. In The Socialism Phenomena (1980), the Soviet-era dissident, Igor Shafarevich, (1923–2017) explained:
The complete subjugation of life to the prescriptions of the law and to officialdom led to extraordinary standardization: identical clothing, identical houses, identical roads. … As a result of this spirit of standardization, anything the least bit different was looked upon as dangerous and hostile, whether it was the birth of twins or the discovery of a strangely shaped rock. Such things were believed to be manifestations of evil forces hostile to society.
To what extent is it possible to call the Inca state socialist? … Socialist principles were clearly expressed in the structure of the Inca state: the almost complete absence of private property, in particular of private land; absence of money and trade; the complete elimination of private initiative from all economic activities; detailed regulation of private life; marriage by official decrees; state distribution of wives and concubines.
An especially detailed description of the nature and workings of the Inca state is found in the classic work, A Socialist Empire: The Incas of Peru (1927), by the French economist and historian Louis Baudin (1887–1964). The Incas ruled through a cruel and pervasive system of command and control over everyday life. Baudin explained:
Every socialist system must rest upon a powerful bureaucratic administration. In the Inca Empire, as soon as a province was conquered, its population would be organized on a hierarchical basis, and the [imperial] officials would immediately set to work. … They were in general in charge of the preparation of the statistical tables, the requisitioning of the supplies and provisions needed by their group [over whom they ruled] (seeds, staple foods, wool, etc.), the distribution of the production of the products obtained, the solicitation of assistance and relief in case of need, the supervision of the conduct of their inferiors, and the rendering of complete reports and accounts to their superiors. These operations were facilitated by the fact that those under their supervision were obliged to admit them to their homes at any moment, and allow them to inspect everything in their homes, down to the cooking utensils, and even to eat with the doors open …
The Inca bureaucracy cast its net over all those that it ruled and soon transformed them into docile and obedient subjects through a “slow and gradual absorption of the individual into the state … until it brought about the loss of personality. Man was made for the state, and not the state for the man,” Baudin said. The Incas tried to banish “the two great causes of popular disaffection, poverty and idleness. … But by the same token, they dried up the two springs of progress, initiative and provident concern for the future.” The Inca government did all the thinking and planning for their subjects, with the result that there was a “stagnation of commerce … lack of vitality and the absence of originality in the arts, dogmatism in science, and the rareness of even the simplest inventions.”
This inertia was fostered through the institutions of the welfare state. “As for the provident concern for the future,” Baudin asked,“ how could that have been developed among a people whose public granaries were crammed with provisions and whose public officials were authorized to distribute them in case of need? There was never a need to think beyond the necessities of the moment.”
In addition, the Inca welfare state undermined the motive for charity and any personal sense of responsibility for family or community:
But what is even more serious is that the substitution of the state for the individual in the economic domain destroyed the spirit of charity. The native Peruvian, expecting the state to do everything, no longer had to concern himself with his fellow man and had to come to his aid only if required by law. The members of a community were compelled to work on the land for the benefit of those who were incapacitated; but when this task had been performed, they were free from all further obligations. They had to help their neighbors if ordered to do so by their chiefs, but they were obliged to do nothing on their own initiative. That is why, by the time of the Spanish conquest, the most elementary humanitarian feelings were in danger of disappearing entirely.