July 24, 2013 7:59 pm at 7:59 pm #1061553
mdd- thank for being courteous in your reply! However, I do not understand your response. The thousands of Poskim who had the responsibility of paskening throughout history had to deal with real life and real problems. Often, they adjusted their teshuvos to the circumstances (shaas hadchak, hefsed merubah,etc)Check any teshuvos and you will find a keen acceptance of circumstances.
In yeshiva (a very modern phenomenon, btw) one cound pasken in theory and disregard the consequences. You could not do this in real life.July 24, 2013 11:21 pm at 11:21 pm #1061555
ROB, life does not override Halochah, chas ve’sholom. There are leniencies within Halochah for difficult situations. If we allow something be’shas hadchak etc. it is because there is enough “theoretical” basis (shittos/shittah) to allow it. If there is not, it is ossur.
Secondly, it is ossur de’rabbonon to make a new fire on Yom Tov.July 25, 2013 2:04 am at 2:04 am #1061556
mdd: Thank you for your reply. I think that you have a skewed impression of halcoho.No one is saying that you should be mattir something that is obviously ossur, that is ridiculous. But you find in teshuvos that the Possek finds kulos to answer certain questions and uses a variety of life situations- from hefsed merubbah to shaas hadechak, to agunos, etc…to pasken in a certain way, evenb if theoretically one could pasken otherwise.
As far as electricity on yom tov- you are saying that the lighting of a bulb (for example) is “nolad’ which, as you indicate, would be ossur. But the current is already stored and it is not nolad. OR- how about dimming a light on yom tov? the light is there, you only change its intensity and, if you want to say that it is mechabeh shelo lezorach, how about raising the strength of a light? That, surely should be muttar!July 25, 2013 3:32 am at 3:32 am #1061557
mdd: While you are completely correct in theory, history bears witness to what rob is saying. If you look at the T’shuvos throughout history, you see a different type of N’tiah in those who were actually involved in the community than those who just learned. It’s not looking for Kulas or finding extra Sha’as Hadchaks or anything like that. It’s that those who lived in the Tirchos of the Tzibbur had a different outlook on life, just like’s everyone’s experiences in life affect the way that they learn every Sugya. That’s why HKBH gives us lives and Nisyonos and situations instead of just putting us in rooms to learn 24/7.July 25, 2013 3:59 am at 3:59 am #1061558
ROB – no thanks to you for your reply. It is you who has a skewed MO am-haaretz view on Halochah.
Sam2, even if it’s true about certain Poskim, who said they were right?July 25, 2013 4:06 am at 4:06 am #1061559
ROB and Sam2, there is such a thing as straightness, namely — not twisting the Torah to satisfy demands of kalim.July 25, 2013 4:12 am at 4:12 am #1061560
Sam2, your reply is self-contradictory. That “different outlook” is exactly that which you mentioned “looking for kulos and finding extra shaas ha’dchaks”.July 25, 2013 12:44 pm at 12:44 pm #1061561
mdd: Well, for the life of me, I wonder why you could not be more courteous and avoid insults. But leave that aside, all you have to do is look at the actual teshuvos. Not every time does a Possek ‘pasken lekuloh’ but you find an overwhelming amount of reliance on the many aspects of daily life that I mentioned (shaas hadechak, hefsed merubbah….etc) I am not sure why you are so vehement about this, as the evidence is overwhelming against you. It is not a question of “kalim”, it is a question how to pasken when faced with certain circumstances and Rabbonim were faced every day with difficult circumstances, in choshen mishpot, jore deah, even ho-ezer and orach chaim!July 25, 2013 3:05 pm at 3:05 pm #1061562
ROB is correct in a sense. Halakha does contain meta-halakhic values, which poskim do operate within. Torah is perfect, but the human condition is not perfect. People are imperfect. We’re fragile, we’re weak, we succumb to temptation and changing tides of social mores. Our most courageous poskim found ways to enfranchise all and give all of klal yisrael a place at the table, so to speak. Some of these approaches go a little beyond what we may believe to be correct, but nonetheless, they reflect a degree of being attuned to needs and realities.
The Rema allowed Moravian Jews to consume gentile wine.
Rav Chaim Hirschensohn allowed Jewish men, otherwise observant, to shave with a T-Razor.
Rav Yosef Messas argued that a mechallel shabbat can still be trusted for his kashrut, among other psakim many of you would call him a Conservative Jew for.
The Rambam allowed a man to convert his gentile lady of the house to guard him from the sin of intermarriage, even though she wouldn’t be observant.
Perusing responsa demonstrates that poskim were often unafraid to test the limits of the halakha in such a way as to make it relevant and accommodating to the needs of the human condition.July 25, 2013 5:36 pm at 5:36 pm #1061563
ROB, you attacked me first. If you don’t want to understand ( just re-read my posts and think about them), I can’t help you. There is no evidence against me.
Rebdoniel, A happy YU/JTC day!July 25, 2013 6:16 pm at 6:16 pm #1061564
mdd: I will refrain from saying anything “ad hominem”, so thay your sensitivity does not get bruised. let’s get back to halochos and shaalos uteshuvos.
I do not have the erudition of rebdoniel and/or deep research, but you are wrong to assume that his sources are not valid. I’ll give you two examples for people that you surely must respect.
The Nodah Bejehudah ultimately gives a hetter to shave chol hamoed (well known kuloh) and R”moshe zz’l agrees. Don’t you think this is due to adapting to the circumstances?
R”Dovid Hoffman zz’l ,in his teshuvos “melamed leho’il” allows a gentile woman to convert,even though it is because she wants to marry a jew. (he does it a number of times). Isn’t that adapting to circumsatances? (R”dovid says as much).
There are numeous kulos that have been used for agunos, especially during the two world wars. Don’t you think this is adapting to circumstances?
I could do more research and show more sources but you get the idea. Poskim throughout history have used circumstances to pasken. In yeshivos, you can afford to remain aloof and untouched by life circumstances. Not so to Rabbonim and Poskim.July 25, 2013 6:22 pm at 6:22 pm #1061565ToiParticipant
thats pretty funny. i post the word heck on here at least once a week. this time i got edited. and the word in the butcher article wasnt edited. aha.July 25, 2013 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #1061566
Just to be clear, anyone who can actually read the T’shuvos sees that the Rema was never Mattir anyone to drink Stam Yeinam. He says so explicitly. Repeating that the Rama was Mattir Stam Yeinam for Moravian Jews is misrepresenting Halachah and being Motzi Shem Ra. Not only that, it is Megaleh Panim Shelo KaHalachah because it denies the important K’lal that the Rama is actually trying to present in that T’shuvah.July 25, 2013 8:14 pm at 8:14 pm #1061567
Sam2- Instinctively, I side with you on the Rema. However, as ‘rebdoniel’ seems to have a source , can you enlighten us which teshuva that might be?
To rebdoniel- any source for your assumption?July 25, 2013 8:58 pm at 8:58 pm #1061568truthsharerMember
You can take a look at hebrewbooks.org and look for the Coco-Cola shailah. The rabbi said that “it’s not possible for Jews to drink treife, so I will see if I can find a way to make it kosher.”
Because this wasn’t academic but reality, he “found” a heter.
Had it been academic, a rosh yeshivah would have just said, “assur.”
This is another reason why the slide to the right is happening, since a majority of the gedolim are RY and not poskim/shul rabbis (which is another article, how people are not utilizing shul rabbanim anymore) the slide is inevitable.July 25, 2013 9:17 pm at 9:17 pm #1061569
The Rema finds reasons to permit the drinking of wine made by Gentiles, but it is not because he thinks that the practice is indeed permitted. As he says there, he was faced with the fact that the Jews of Moravia drank wine produced by Gentiles and that their rabbis permitted it. He therefore wanted to show that there was a “slight” reason to permit the wine, “even though it is not according to custom and law,” so that other Jewish communities
would not classify the Moravian Jews as sinners and so that their rabbis would not be those who knowingly lead others astray but
rather those who stumble in understanding the words of the Torah.
Furthermore, even then the grounds for permitting wine made by
Gentiles were specifically in regard to a case when all other drinks were contaminated.
I should have been more precise in my wording above. The teshuva nonetheless does demonstrate a sense of dynamism and responsiveness to the needs of the Moravian Jews.July 25, 2013 9:54 pm at 9:54 pm #1061570
truthsharer: you hit it on the head! Roshei Yshiva are wonderful people but are not involved in everyday life and this is lacking today in many of the gedolim!July 25, 2013 10:05 pm at 10:05 pm #1061571
rob: It’s T’shuvas HaRama Siman 104 or 105, if I recall correctly.
And mdd, truthsharer gave a perfect example of what I was referring to. R’ Moshe’s Shittah on Chalav Yisrael is probably a similar example. (Though I would word it slightly differently. I would say that Poskim think, “It’s not possible that so many Jews are drinking Trief; therefore I will make sure to prove that it’s Muttar.”July 25, 2013 10:53 pm at 10:53 pm #1061572
I’d also suggest reading what Jacob Katz has to say about this teshuva (#124, which was omitted from later versions of the Rema). The outcome was that drinking the stam yenam shouldn’t be seen as something that makes the Moravian Jews sinners. The Rema does, in fact, cite as a reason for writing the teshuva that evildoers are likely to point out that the Moravian Jews are not being punished by the Almighty for their deeds, and use this fact as “proof” that drinking stam yaynam is in fact permissible! It’s an interesting case study, but one which demonstrates a creative halakhic approach to save Jews from being cast as sinners.
Someone above accused the poskim I cited as being “YU/JCT.” I don’t make up these facts, but observing the motivations and outcomes of these decisions shows that great rabbis have exercised creativity and flexibility in addressing these concerns. I don’t always agree with the arguments or the psakim, but this is an undeniable fact about the history of halakha.July 26, 2013 2:34 am at 2:34 am #1061573
rebdoniel and Sam2- it is teshuvo 124 and you can find in hebrewbooks.org (after some search). The Remo does NOT say that ‘stam jeinom’ is ossur. He tries very hard not to accuse the Moravian jews of being “ovrei aveirah’ and therefore not to be believed. Hence, he finds a hetter for them (see teshuvo)to pasken like shmuel and rabbeinu TaM).Actually, it is an absolute proof to what has been said forever, that Poskim do find ways to use a hetter if circumstances need it. In moravia,circumstances needed it, but elsewhere not!July 26, 2013 2:40 am at 2:40 am #1061574jewishfeminist02Member
My husband says:
Charliehall: “Not clear what the problem with the Yerushalmi is, or why we would not follow it, especially when the psak of the Bavli is unclear. But we clearly do not do regularly follow the Yerushalmi.”
In the Megilas Ester (the perush on the Rambam, not the sefer in Tanakh) on the shorashim preceding the Sefer HaMitzvos (shoresh #6), he says that the Rambam will posken like the Yerushalmi or Midrashei Halacha (Sifra and Sifre) when the halacha is not clearly resolvable based on the Bavli.
Here’s an example of poskening like the Sifra. The Sifra interprets the pasuk from which we derive the halachos of ona’ah (“ki tikneh me’amisecha… -Vayikra 25:14) to also mean that we should prefer buying from Jews over goyim, even at a (slight?) financial loss. The Chofetz Chayim brings this down l’halacha with respect to etrog suppliers. Etrog suppliers are supposed to buy from Jewish wholesalers rather than goyishe wholesalers, and that is because of this Sifra. (Sha’arei Tziyun OC 648:76).July 26, 2013 3:09 am at 3:09 am #1061575
The Rambam outlines his methodology at the beginning of the MT. He clearly says that he will pasken based on midrashie halakha or even the occasional Yerushalmi.
His claim that women cannot serve in positions of serarah, for instance, is based on a Sifre (Devarim), albeit most likely a corrupt manuscript.
Likewise, the Rambam paskens that we lay tefillin on Hol haMoed, since the Yerushalmi says so explicitly, whereas the Bavli is ambivalent (the Kesef Mishne, IIRC, argues that because the Bavli says we don’t write safut on Hol haMoed, this should mean we also don’t lay tefillin then).July 26, 2013 3:24 am at 3:24 am #1061576
rob: No. Absolutely not. He does not in any way say it’s Muttar. He says that they have a S’vara and are Moreh Heter, which (even though they are wrong) makes them not Chashudim Al Hadavar and therefore don’t have a Din of Lo Dano V’lo M’ido.July 26, 2013 3:42 am at 3:42 am #1061577
There are many psakim I’ve read in the teshuvot which fall out of what we think of as “Orthodox,” because “Orthodoxy” is a novelty in the history of the Jewish people. Not allowing what is permitted al pi din for sectarian purposes defines much of the policy stances taken by today’s Orthodox rabbis.
I’ve been looking into the organ issue recently, for instance. While Ashkenazic rabbis opposed its use on the grounds of chukat hagoy (if having instruments during tefillah is chukat hagoy, then I guess all of the Carlebach minyanim are sinful) and shevut.
I discovered that R’ Hayyim Ayyush, grandson of Rav Yehuda Ayyush, and son of the Rishon LeTzion in the late 1700s, approved of a decision by R’ Ya’akov Recanati of Verona which allowed the organ.
Also, the Egyptian posek R’ Rafael Aharon ben Shimon paskened that a gentile organist could be used on Shabbat because music connected with a religious occasion is mutar on the basis of ahevut de shevut le shem mitzvah mutar. The Nehar Mitzrayim, R’ Ben Shimon, (15-19) says also that it was a widespread practice to do so among the Sephardim, and the Chida himself even notes (without objection) this practice.
Nowadays, such a posek would be laughed out of Orthodox Judaism (so too would Rav Uziel, the Vilna Gaon, the Noda be Yehuda, and all other poskim throughout the ages who paskened in ways that don’t perfectly satisfy the Orthodox status quo of the past few decades).July 26, 2013 4:35 am at 4:35 am #1061578
Sam2: I reviewed my post and you are absolutely right!!! I wanted to write that the Remo does NOT say it is MUTTAR. (as per most rishonim who pasken like Rav, as far as ben jomo goes, see teshuvo).My apologies for a mistype. I seem to make many of them!
He says exactly as you write, that they have a shittah to follow (like the rishonim who pasken like shmuel and Rabbeinu TaM) and therefore, should not be considered sinners. Thank you for correcting me.July 26, 2013 5:13 am at 5:13 am #1061579
Rebdoniel, you are so off that it is useless to talk to you. Are you having a party at the Jewish(Conservative) Theological Seminary?
ROB and Truthsharer, as a last attempt to enlighten you. There is such a thing as looking for a heter or trying to find a justification for a certain practice, but you have to understand that often the justification is shaky or plain invalid or not-a-lechatchilah. It is important to bear this in mind unless(I hope not) you are just looking for an execuse to do something.July 26, 2013 5:21 am at 5:21 am #1061580
And btw, ROB and Truthsharer, the Israeli Chareidim also “were looking for and found a heter for the Chillul Ha’Shem shaila” vis-a-vis the share-the-burden issue. I bet this “heter” you don’t like.July 26, 2013 11:24 am at 11:24 am #1061581
One tactic that has been observed by many of us is that when well-documented arguments involving traditional sources are presented, and if the results/outcomes aren’t the way people on the right would like them to be, instead of actually offering a rational answer or explanation, the response is ad hominem attacks. You can call someone an apikores, or accuse them of being “Conservative,” (anyone who understands my approach to halakha understands that it is quite the opposite of what the CJLS supports!), or whatever the insult may be, but that doesn’t change reality.July 26, 2013 1:57 pm at 1:57 pm #1061582
mdd: Thank you for trying to put your best foot forwards. However,’bemechilas kevod toroscho”, a few of the posts before you refer to a teshuvas Horemo (124) and I made the effort of reading through it all. The Remo-the Remo!- goes out of his way to find a reason why in Moravia, jews drank ‘stam jenom”.He takes the side of the makilim on this- in direct contradiction to what you said! True, he himself dos not accept the hetter but- to protect Jews in Moravia- he accepts a big “kuloh”.Other examples abound and I can quote you other Teshuvos HoRemo on this!
I have no idea to what you are referring in your quote of “the chillul hashem shailah”.July 26, 2013 2:29 pm at 2:29 pm #1061583
I don’t see how ROB’s reading of the teshuva (or mine) is erroneous, Sam2.
Take the question of weddings on the Shabbat. To avoid loss, and to promote human dignity, the Rema was matir it. Poskim being responsive to human need is not inherently a bad thing. (I don’t see how making a kinyan, in any event, violates shabbat. BM 9 says that while making a kinyan on shabbat isn’t desirable, a kinyan made on shabbat still takes effect).July 26, 2013 2:36 pm at 2:36 pm #1061584
It makes perfect sense that having an organ in Shul in Sephardic lands wasn’t considered Chukas Akkum. They weren’t relating to Christian service at all and therefore did not have the same concept of an organ that Ashkenazim did. And that’s okay. That doesn’t make those Poskim not-mainstream. They Paskened correctly according to the situation as they saw it. If they had been familiar with contemporary Church practices maybe they would have Paskened differently. Ashkenazim were and did. Also, Sephardic lands did not have to go to the lengths that Ashkenazim did to avoid association with Reform. And, as R’ Schachter says, if an Apikorsus movement decides to make an issue something they define themselves by (even if technically there are Tzdadim to legitimately Pasken that way in certain cases under Ikkar Hadin), then following them is Yeihareg V’al Ya’avor.July 26, 2013 4:05 pm at 4:05 pm #1061585
rebdoniel and Sam2: I doubt that the playing of music in shuls was ever disallowed. Playing it on Shabbos has always been the question in shuls- because playing music is a “shvus” and could be allowed by a non-jew . It was vehemently opposed for the reason that Sam2 is giving: the identity of X-ian music and its adoption by Reform. Hence, Carlebach minyonimm are OK! (I attend many of them).
Sam2- I feel uncomfortable how you are making fairly minor transgressions “Yeihareg V’al Yaavor’ (your spelling). I know some of these are considered “avizrayo” but I kind of feel that the ultimate sacrifice should be for ultimate transgressions- hired murder, incest and idolatry.
rebdoniel: I do marvel at your erudition but it would be useful if you bring us sources for your many claims-such as that the Remo allowed marriage to occur on Shabbat.July 26, 2013 4:07 pm at 4:07 pm #1061586
R’ Yisrael Moshe Hazzan, though, explains in his Kerakh Shel Romi that the very function having an organ filled was to emulate the dignified mores observed among the general society; he writes that halakhically, Jews must take cognizance of the standards of the society in which they live. Allowing the organ, for these Sephardic poskim, was an exercise in the more worldly and humanistic attitude inherent in the Sephardic approach.
And, I highly doubt people at JTS care what you think, MDD. While I never attended JTS, there are quite a few frum people who study there, as there is no better institution in the US for the critical, academic study of texts than JTS.July 26, 2013 4:23 pm at 4:23 pm #1061587
rebdoniel: I went back to teshuvos Horemo and indeed, in teshuvo 125, the Remo justifies one situation where he was ‘mesader kiddushim” on friday evening after the z’man. It is a complicated teshuvo and one should read it thoroughly. However, it is, of course, a “shaas hadechak” in extremis and I think it is a little bit irresponsible to claim (as you did)that te Remo allowed for a marriage on shabbos. yes, you qualified it but one truly has to look at the source and see the severity of “shaas hadechak”.July 26, 2013 4:27 pm at 4:27 pm #1061588
ROB, just do me a favor try to pay attention to what I wrote, especially, in my last post. And, exactly, Ramo himself did not like the heter/limud zechus of his own– that’s exactly what I meant. It all depends on what you are out to do (hey, Rebdoniel, I am talking to you too now). If you want to do the ratzon Ha’Shem you need to pasken based on “theoretics”. If you just want to have your kulos no matter what (or stam do whatever you want) and then expect some Rabbi to come along and create a post factum heter, that’s a different story. But then you are not an yirey Shamaim or even not an erlache Yid (depending on the circumstances).July 26, 2013 4:30 pm at 4:30 pm #1061589
ROB, about the Chillul Ha’Shem, I meant what the Isr. Chareidim do by refusing to serve and how they do it.July 26, 2013 4:33 pm at 4:33 pm #1061590
And, Rebdoniel, I deny no documents. I just say that it is often far from lechatchila or even wrong (at times) to follow that derech. OK?July 26, 2013 5:17 pm at 5:17 pm #1061591
The Rema was an example of a posek who ruled in accordance with the perceived needs of the Jewish communities he dealt with.
The responsa give us a vivid picture of what Jewish life was like and offer a lens into the needs of the human condition in different times and places. While one, as a matter of policy, shouldn’t drink gentile wine or get married on the Sabbath, it’s interesting to see how these poskim dealt with such scenarios.
Halakha can be flexible within the parameters of what has been codified and received from the Talmud.July 26, 2013 5:26 pm at 5:26 pm #1061592
mdd: Perhaps you would say it like this: There is a difference between finding a situational Heter in an extreme case and attempting to make said Heter the status quo?July 26, 2013 6:11 pm at 6:11 pm #1061593apushatayidParticipant
I think people are confusing “kula” and a psak that is meikel.July 26, 2013 7:32 pm at 7:32 pm #1061594
mdd: Not much time before shabbos but I think that our halachic thinking may be closer thsn you think. I am not sure what your theoretical aspect means but I know that ,as shown by the Remo and others,circumstances sometimes compel a psak that, otherwise, might be different. Sam2 ‘s definition may be closest. On the other hand, it is clear to me that, from the gemoro onwards, psak preferred a “meiel’ approach. well, have a great sahbbos!July 26, 2013 7:43 pm at 7:43 pm #1061595
Sam2, I am not sure if what you said expresses it all but a part of it, for sure. Yasher koach.July 25, 2014 8:24 pm at 8:24 pm #1061596Patur Aval AssurParticipant
Regarding poskim looking for heterim:
?????? ?? ????? ??? ???? ????? ?????? ???????”? ??? ????? ???? ?????? ???? ?????? ????? ????? ????? ????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ???? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?’ ???? ????? ???? ????? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ????? ???? ??? ??? “?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??? ???? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ??????” ?????? ??”? ??????? ?????? ????? ??? ?????? ??? ?????? ???? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ???? ????? ?”? ????
(Tiferes Dovid Perek 2)
editedJuly 27, 2014 4:43 am at 4:43 am #1061597
You can’t compare cases of agunos, real agunos, with other instances of Halacha. By agunos the Halacha is to specifically look for a heter.July 27, 2014 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #1061598charliehallParticipant
“Gemora in Kesuvos 72A says it is. Who holds it’s de’rabbonon or a minhag?”
See Rabbi Broyde’s long essay for a list. There are many other examples where the actual halachah is not like the Bavli.July 27, 2014 2:59 pm at 2:59 pm #1061599charliehallParticipant
“By agunos the Halacha is to specifically look for a heter.”
And even more so by mamzerim.July 27, 2014 4:00 pm at 4:00 pm #1061600
Wow! A ressusicated thread!
Charliehall is absolutely right: so much so that the gemoro itself paskens ‘mamzer vadai omanr rachmono velo mamzer sofek” In other words, the essence of a psak on “mamzeirus’ needs absolute certainty. Otherwise, ipso facto, he/she is not a mamzer.
And yet, nisht,there is n osuch psak on agunos but Poskim have always looked for any kuloh.
May I also add that, in similar circumstances, there should be kulos with geirus too- in line with the Rambam and many Poskim-and in contrast to the ridiculous Piskei halocho on geirus by recent Israeli rabbonim that made no sense. (psul lemafrea?)July 27, 2014 5:04 pm at 5:04 pm #1061601Patur Aval AssurParticipant
The point of the story (which has no relevance to whether specific areas of halacha are more heter-worthy than others) is that R’ Yitzchak Elchanan came up with heterim in situations where others didn’t, BECAUSE he had more motivation since he was directly confronted with the tzaar of the agunos and he felt it strongly. This is a support to those earlier in this thread who were asserting that (in general) Roshei Yeshiva deal more in theoretics as opposed to the real world which would provide the motivation to find a heter. (Obviously it is problematic if the motivation leads you to come up with an illegitimate heter.) So for instance, someone writing a sefer on hilchos agunos might just say xyz is assur, whereas R’ Yitzchak Elchanan, dealing with the actual aguna, will find her a heter. The same structural idea can be applied to other areas of halacha as well. And this is one of the reasons why some poskim prefer the Aruch Hashulchan to the Mishnah Berurah.July 27, 2014 5:19 pm at 5:19 pm #1061602
Michael Broyde has passiked himself from any nemanus. There is a reason he was tossed off the BDA. Part of it has to do with trying to create a false precedent by alleging a statement by R Moshe.July 27, 2014 5:35 pm at 5:35 pm #1061603
The best way to help ?????? is to establish ????? that will
Obviate the issue. Avi Weiss and his ilk’s attempts to reduce or eliminate the system of ?????? in Israel is doing just the opposite.
The damage he is trying to do is almost as bad as Hamas. His actions are destroying future generations.
Is it a wonder why ???? ???? are horrified by him, his actions and his hangers on.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.