destroy the enemies of Israel

 I appreciate that the U.S.A is helping and I certainly agree that is owed because of that, but I do not think Israel should be limited by the goals and policies of the U.S.A..There is no serious difference between Hamas and the rest of the population of Gaza. You can't have a neighbor  who is saying the first chance he gets he will kill you in your bed as you sleep at night. You would complain to the police; and if they refuse to do anything, you would do what ever you could to protect yourself. The enemies of Israel have decided to drive the Jews into the sea, and Israel has the right to refuse them that privilege, --and to put them in a position in which they can not accomplish that goal. Gaza is too close to be able to defend against. Therefore, there is no choice but to destroy the enemies of Israel 

Ketubot page 18b and 19 a דעת הרמב''ם, לא ראב''ד הלכות גירושין י''ב ה''ג] Rambam Laws of Divorce 12 law 3.

A wife who has her document of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses]  unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the Rambam, not Raavad Laws of Gitin 12-3.] But if he says it he lost it and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a document of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. The later authorities question, "Why the difference?" Rav Shach writes the the loan needs establishing and so it it a case the same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same mouth that establishes that he never borrowed anything. The divorce however is valid with the husband not saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a document of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here.  He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it. [i know this seems way to obvious for it to be a simple mistake. i am just writing it down as it is until hopefully i get some answer ]

___________________________________________________________________________

A wife who has her doc of divorce does not need to establish it [by asking the witnesses]  unless the husband says it was forged. [This is the opinion of the רמב''ם, not ראב''ד  Laws of גירושין ] But if he says it he lost it, and she found it, he is not believed. Losing a document of divorce is not common. But for a שטר of a loan where the borrower claims a similar weak plea, he is believed. אחרונים are puzzled by the difference. רב שך writes the the loan needs establishing, and so it it a case the הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (The same person that establishes that he wrote it is the same person that says that he never borrowed anything.) The divorce however is valid without the husband saying anything. The question I have here is that the only time you need to establish a שטר of a loan is when one is collecting it not in the presence of the borrower. But in our case the borrower is here.  He is saying he wrote it, but he lost it. 

_________________________________________________________________________________

אשה שיש לה מסמך גירושין אינה צריכה להעמידו [בשאילת העדים] אלא אם כן הבעל אומר שזויף. [זו דעת הרמב''ם, לא ראב''ד הלכות גירושין י''ב ה''ג] אבל אם אמר הפסיד, והיא מצאה, אינו נאמן. אובדן מסמך גירושין אינו שכיח. אבל על שטר של הלוואה שבה הלווה טוען טענה חלשה דומה, הוא נאמן. אחרונים שואלים מההבדל. רב שך כותב את ההלוואה צריכה להקים ולכן זה מקרה הפה שאסר הוא הפה שהיתיר. (אותו אדם שקובע שכתב את זה הוא אותו אדם שאומר שמעולם לא שאל כלום.) הגירושין לעומת זאת תקפים מבלי שהבעל אמר דבר. השאלה שיש לי כאן היא שהפעם היחידה שאתה צריך להקים שטר של הלוואה היא כאשר גובים אותה לא בנוכחות הלווה. אבל במקרה שלנו הלווה כאן. הוא אומר שהוא כתב את זה אבל הוא איבד את זה

 סביב רשעים יתהלכון ''Around and go the wicked''. [That is from Psalms.] It is hard enough to find a true area of value, but even when you do, the wicked surround it and it is too easy to get caught in the consciousness traps that they set for you. Even if you have found your way into the center of an authentic area of value, the Dark Side still never gives up trying to get you.

[Sometimes the way itself is  lost.]

What I mean by areas of value--I am referring to Dr. Kelley Ross's Approach: Foundations of Value 

This is based on Jacob Fries's modification of Kant and Leonard Nelson. Fries modified Kant's Transcendental Deduction with the new idea of immediate non intuitive knowledge. 

I was at the beach and noticed a few people that looked ''yeshivish'', and asked from where they come. A Litvak yeshiva in Jerusalem. We discussed some of what I am learning nowadays, and I mentioned the sugia [subect] I am in at present--trying to figure out and argument between Rav Shach and Reb Chaim [The Brisker Rav] in the first mishna in Gitin. They asked why I am not in a yeshiva myself, and I made some excuses--while in fact it is my own fault. If I had stuck with the straight Litvak path of the Gra from the beginning, then in fact things would have been different. But once out --always out. So at least I try to hold on to learning and keeping the straight and narrow Torah path--the path of the Gra as best I can on my own.

[Part of the problem is women and men that do not value learning TORAH. Men that do not value LEARNING TORAH might very well be in yeshivot themselves and even kollel-leit--people that learn Torah and have found it a lucrative way to make a quick buck. Or you have most of the women in the world that grew up without valuing learning TORAH. It makes no difference if they are religious or not. they are nightmares.  In fact, if they are religious they are worse --self righteous hags.]

herem [excommunication] signed by the GRA

I am not sure why the herem [excommunication] signed by the GRA is universally ignored. It seems to me to valid from the stand point of halacha. I once was in the old city of Jerusalem in a small public library which had in it a book that contained the actual language  of the five different herems that were declared. [The one the Gra signed was the second. ] I looked to see if I could gain any clarity, and the best I could come up with was that Rav Nahman would not be under that herem, but other than that, it seemed to be applicable now just as much as it was then.

Besides that in noticed that the laws of herem stem from nedarim/oaths and have that same category as when someone says ''my bread is a karban [sacrifice] to you.'' This being the case, transgressing the herem of the Gra is deUraita--a prohibition of the Torah.

i might mention that the herem was to warn people from what would injure them, not just to find things to forbid.  

 I do not hold with institutions in general except in so far as they further their stated goals. Thus, the Litvak yeshiva world does tend to be sitting and learning Torah. But that seems to be evaporating once the great Litvak sages from before WWII are disappearing. The more these great sages like Rav Shach or Rav Israel Kinyevsky disappear, the more the yeshivot become institutions to make money. It might be that nowadays the best one can do is not to depend on anyone else, but to get an Avi Ezri or Chidushei haRambam by Reb Chaim of Brisk and to learn at home, or any corner where one can find a private spot to learn. [There is a problem that comes with trying to mix religion and money. Sincerity goes out the window. Thus learning at home might be the only possibility nowadays.] [My impression is that yeshivot lay out the red carpet for if they think you or your parents have plenty of money, but all that supposed kindness dries up when you are in need. ] 

South Africa, the world leader in genocide

 South Africa has been erasing white people by rape and murder since the 1990's until this very day and they complain about Israel defending it's borders? To me an accusation of genocide coming from South Africa, the world leader in genocide, seems more like a  joke than a serious accusation.