מי באמת פעל בתפילה להכשיל את הקמת הקואליציה? – שוועת נשים צדקניות

בחצות לילה: “נשות מאה שערים” התפללו נגד ‘חוק הגיוס’

לקראת חצות הלילה, התכנסה קבוצת נשים ובנותיהן, בבית כנסת בלב מאה שערים, פתחה את ארון הקודש ונעמדה מול ספרי התורה בתפילה חרישית שליברמן לא יכנע ו’חוק הגיוס’ לא יעבור (חדשות)

חיים גולדברג|כ”ד באייר תשעט 09:47 29.05.19

קבוצת נשים ובנותיהן התכנסו אמש (שלישי) לקראת חצות הלילה, בבית כנסת בשכונת מאה שערים בירושלים, לתפילה נגד ‘חוק הגיוס’ ונגד הקמת ממשלה חדשה.

הנשים, “נשות מאה שערים”, הגיעו לבית הכנסת בלב שוק מאה שערים והתפללו שיו”ר ‘ישראל ביתנו’ אביגדור ליברמן לא יכנע למפלגות החרדיות, שלא יהיו יעדים וש’חוק הגיוס’ לא יעבור.

בנוסף, הן התפללו שהממשלה החדשה לא תקום כדי שישראל תלך לבחירות וכך לא יהיה את ‘חוק הגיוס’.

בתיעוד בלעדי המתפרסם ב’כיכר השבת’ נראות הנשים עומדות בתוך בית הכנסת, על מדרגות ארון הקודש הפתוח, בפני ספרי התורה, ונושאות תפילה.

התפילה נערכה בחשאיות רבה, לקראת חצות לילה, תוך שהן נועלות את בית הכנסת כדי למנוע כניסת אנשים אחרים למקום.

כזכור, עד חצות הלילה – היום, ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו אמור להשלים את הרכבת הממשלה, אחרת, הכנסת צפויה להצביע על החוק לפיזור הכנסת וישראל תלך לבחירות חוזרות, בתוך חצי שנה.

המשבר הפוליטי נסוב סביב התעקשותו של ליברמן על ‘חוק הגיוס’, כאשר אינו נענה לשום פשרה – למרות הפשרות להן הסכימו גדולי ישראל והמפלגות החרדיות.

במערכת הפוליטית מעריכים כי ליברמן רק משתמש ב’חוק הגיוס’ כתירוץ למנוע את הקמת הממשלה על ידי ראש הממשלה בנימין נתניהו.

מאתר כיכר השבת, כאן.

Is Judaism Only for Shabbos and Yom Tov?!

As in Birkas Kohanim?

See Rema O.C. 132:

ויש לומר פטום הקטורת ערב ובוקר אחר התפלה… ויש שכתבו ליזהר לומר פיטום הקטורת מתוך הכתב, ולא בעל פה, משום שהאמירה במקום ההקטרה וחיישינן שמא ידלג (ב”י בשם מהר”י וא”ח) אחד מסממנים, ואמרינן שהוא חייב מיתה אם חסר אחת מסממניה; ולכן נהגו שלא לאומרו בחול, שממהרין למלאכתן וחיישינן שמא ידלג.

Now, why don’t we suspect one omit Bris and Torah in Birkas Hamazon, while we’re at it? Even the Aruch Hashulchan (קל”ג), who often defends any and all Minhagim, strongly agrees with the Magen Avraham (סק”ה) who dissents. Actually, if one is accustomed to saying something, he makes fewer mistakes, as the Mishna Berurah notes (קל”ב סקי”ז):

שמא ידלג, ובב”י מפקפק בזה דהלא אין מיתה אלא בהקטרה לא באמירה ועוד דאין מיתה אלא במזיד לכן המדקדקין נוהגין לאמרו בכל יום [מ”א] ויש שכתבו דאותן שאין אומרין רק בשבת אין מרגלא בפומייהו כ”כ יאמרו מתוך הסידור.

Even When the Media FINALLY Do the Right Thing, It’s for the Wrong Reason…

Tide of Public Opinion is Turning in Assange’s Favor

The indictment of Julian Assange under the Espionage Act has profoundly affected press coverage of the WikiLeaks founder, with much of the media turning suddenly and decisively in his favor after years of vilifying him.

The sharp change has also come from some politicians, and significantly, from two Justice Department prosecutors who went public to express their dissent about using the Espionage Act to indict Assange.

To the extent that public opinion matters, the sea-change in coverage could have an effect on the British or Swedish governments’ decision to extradite Assange to the United States to face the charges.

Used to Be a Russian Agent

Since the 2016 U.S. presidential election establishment media, fueled by the Mueller probe, has essentially branded Assange a Russian agent who worked to undermine American democracy.

Focusing on his personality rather than his work, the media mostly cheered his arrest by British police on April 11 after his political asylum was illegally revoked by Ecuador in its London embassy.

Assange’s initial indictment for conspiracy to intrude into a government computer was portrayed by corporate media as the work of a “hacker” and not a journalist, who doesn’t merit First Amendment protection.

But the superseding indictment under the Espionage Act last Thursday has changed all that.

Rather than criminal activity, the indictment actually describes routine journalistic work, such as encouraging sources to turn over sensitive information and hiding a source’s identity.

Since the Trump administration has crossed the red line criminalizing what establishment journalists do all the time, establishment journalists have come full-square against the indictment and behind Assange.

Leading liberal outlets, who until Wednesday openly despised  Assange, began on Thursday to make 180 degree turns in their editorials, commentaries and news reports.

An editorial in The New York Times called the indictment “a marked escalation in the effort to prosecute Mr. Assange, one that could have a chilling effect on American journalism as it has been practiced for generations. It is aimed straight at the heart of the First Amendment.”

“The new charges focus on receiving and publishing classified material from a government source. That is something journalists do all the time. … This is what the First Amendment is designed to protect: the ability of publishers to provide the public with the truth.”

The Times praised Assange’s work:

“Mr. Assange shared much of the material at issue with The New York Times and other news organizations. The resulting stories demonstrated why the protections afforded the press have served the American public so well; they shed important light on the American war effort in Iraq, revealing how the United States turned a blind eye to the torture of prisoners by Iraqi forces and how extensively Iran had meddled in the conflict.”

‘Profoundly Disturbing’

Former Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger wrote:

” I find the Trump administration’s use of the Espionage Act against him profoundly disturbing. … Whatever Assange got up to in 2010-11, it was not espionage. … Imagine the precedent if the Trump administration gets away with this. Israel and India have extensive nuclear weapons programmes – each protected by ferocious domestic official secrets acts. Think of the outcry if the Netanyahu or Modi governments attempted to extradite a British or US journalist to face life in jail for writing true things about their nuclear arsenals. …

Assange is accused of trying to persuade a source to disclose yet more secret information. Most reporters would do the same. Then he is charged with behaviour that, on the face of it, looks like a reporter seeking to help a source protect her identity. If that’s indeed what Assange was doing, good for him.”

The New Yorker‘s Masha Gessen, wrote: “The use of the Espionage Act to prosecute Assange is an attack on the First Amendment. … It stands to reason that an Administration that considers the press an ‘enemy of the people’ would launch this attack. In attacking the media, it is attacking the public.’

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, the Democratic Party booster, who probably had more influence than any commentator in drumming up the Russiagate conspiracy and Assange’s alleged role in it, on Thursday launched into an astounding defense of the imprisoned publisher.  On her program she said:

“The Justice Department today, the Trump administration today, just put every journalistic institution in this country on Julian Assange’s side of the ledger. On his side of the fight. Which, I know, is unimaginable. But that is because the government is now trying to assert this brand new right to criminally prosecute people for publishing secret stuff, and newspapers and magazines and investigative journalists and all sorts of different entities publish secret stuff all the time. That is the bread and butter of what we do.”

Nick Miller, writing in The Sydney Morning Heraldsaid:

“On the face of it this indictment covers a lot of practices that are standard to investigative journalism: appealing for information, encouraging a source to provide documents that are not publicly available, reporting classified information you believe is in the public interest and the public has a right to know. …It may be that prosecutors can argue Assange was not acting as a journalist. But they would, by doing so, make the line separating journalism from espionage wafer-thin, and much more dangerous to approach, even in the public interest.”

Continue reading…

From LRC, here.

Hyehudi: What Like-Minded Jews Don’t Seem to Mind Recently

  1. Abandoning the Priestly Blessing in the Diaspora – Why Do You Look So GUILTY?!
  2. יהדות בריטניה: הדג מסריח מהראש
  3. Science Must Become the Handmaiden of Religion!
  4. תיקוני תשובת המשקל לפגם הברית ועוד – חלק שני
  5. Did You Know Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan’s ‘Living Torah’ Is Online?
  6. ארגון ‘שומרי שבת’ מעדכנים על מוצרים חדשים
  7. Subscribe to Daily Email
  8. במקום הסכמה… הרב יוסף ליברמן נגד הקונטרס בענין כיסוי השיער
  9. Are You Allowed to Say ‘Today Is Wednesday’?
  10. Partial Purim Post Compilation
  11. חדש: קונטרס דייני הכזב

Hop aboard!

The Shameful ‘Tzuk Eitan’ Defeat

These days we are commemorating a year after Operation “Tzuk Eitan” (Protective Edge) and there is still a public debate about the outcome of the war. Some say we won and others say that even if we didn’t lose, we didn’t win either.

In this context, let us recall lines written last year at the height of the Operation, and see them in the perspective of the year that has passed since.

In our parsha we read about the mitzvah of inheriting the land and the need for decisive victory in the war for the land (Bamidbar 33:55): “And if you don’t drive out the natives of the land from before you, then those who you allow to remain will be barbs in your eyes and thorns in your sides.” Yehoshua also commands the nation regarding this before his death. (Yehoshua 23:12) We see in the books of the prophets that Israel paid a heavy price for not winning a decisive victory when inheriting the land. The exception was the tribe of Issachar, about which is said (Bereshith 49:15): “He lowered his shoulder to bear a burden and he was a worker paying tribute.” Rashi explains this according to the Targum: “To bear the burden of wars and to conquer the regions where they live on the border. And the enemy was defeated under him and served him by paying a tribute.” Only the one who wasn’t negligent in achieving decisive victory and conquest of his inheritance created the conditions to dwell in his region securely.”

The Torah explicitly commands us to conclude the war for the land decisively (Devarim 20:19): “When you besiege a city many days to conquer it…lay siege on the city that battles with you until it falls.” The siege has to reach the point of decisive victory “until it falls,” meaning breaching its walls “until its walls fall.” (Rashbam) However this will only be complete with the absolute conquest of the city (Onkeles). And this gain is not wholly realized until it is translated into complete rule and sovereignty, that it will be subservient to you. (Rashi) The battle cannot be considered a success until it ends with decisive victory even if we wear down the enemy and hit him hard. In war, there is no “victory by points”, only by a kind of “knockout”, a clear and unambiguous victory which will yield gains over the long term. From these verses the Sages learned that the need to complete the victory allows the Jews to continue the war on Shabbat (Talmud Shabbat 19a): “A city of heathens shouldn’t be besieged less than three days before Shabbat, but if the siege was commenced, it isn’t stopped. And thus said Shammai: “Until it falls-even on Shabbat.”

King David said (in Tehillim 18:38): “I will pursue my enemies until I reach them, and I will not return until I have destroyed them. I will crush them and they won’t be able to rise, they will fall under my feet.” We learned from him a few principles about war! The first: The pursuit after the enemies must continue until the mission is accomplished. Until then, “I will not return until I have destroyed them.” The second: Even if accomplishing the mission involves much hardship and even danger, “I will not return” – the mission has to be completed entirely – “until I have destroyed them.” The third – we have to act determinedly and unhesitatingly and with full force and strive for clear victory – “I will crush them and they won’t be able to rise.” The fourth – we need to ensure that the gains of the victory will be secure for a long time, so the nation’s stamina won’t get worn down by a drawn-out war which we will have to repeat again and again. This will give the nation the peace necessary to concentrate its national resources in creative and constructive ways.

The Natziv elaborates in HaEmek Davar (on Bamidbar 24:8) “About King Shaul, it is written ‘he prevailed in all that he did’, and about King David, it is written ‘and David was wise in all his ways’. But the difference between them is that one prevails in battle but doesn’t conquer his enemy under him, only fells them and weakens them. The result is that he doesn’t bring success to his nation. And one prevails and conquers under him. And this is the success of the nation…” Shaul only weakened his enemies and prevailed upon them. David conquered and stationed his guards from Edom to Moav and all the nations he conquered… because the one who prevails over his enemies only weakens them temporarily, until they become stronger few years later. Therefore decisive victory has to remain secure.” (See also on Devarim 33:11)

This principle also guided the Hasmoneans in their war. The Natziv (Emek Davar on Devarim 33:11) explains Moshe’s blessing to the Tribe of Levi: “And he gave them two blessings: ‘He will pound the thighs of his enemies’ ….’and his enemies won’t be able to rise’ which is greater than the first (blessing) which is only pounding and striking during the battle, but they (the enemies) are always liable to rise and overpower in a subsequent war. But this blessing is that the pounding will be such that they will not rise again, like in the Hasmonean war against the Greek empire.

Today there is an academic debate over the subject of decisive victory and how this materializes in a conflict like “Tzuk Eitan” – whether the current relative quiet is the sign of decisive victory or a quiet “time-out” for reorganization for the future. Our opinion is that the second statement is closer to the truth, and we try to utilize the interim to learn lessons and prepare for the future. At the same time, we should closely examine the subject of the Torah’s requirement to strive for a decisive victory.

From Yeshivat Machon Harel, here.