In terms of Trump, let me just say that not all menstrual blood is unclean.
First of all  there are five shades of red that are unclean and five that are clean.--And in spite of what you may think--these are possible to verify. And that is strict דין תורה--the law of the Bible.
When the question of blood comes up nowadays, what happens id  that any shade of red or black is considered unclean. But that is not because of the Torah. That is because people are too lazy to find out example what wavelengths constitute unclean and which ones constitute clean blood.

Another astounding fact is that nowadays there is almost never any kind of הרגשה [feeling] that the Talmud considers a problem. [Unless there is feeling there is nothing unclean.] I have not made a big deal about this because the Noda BeYehuda did in fact say that the feeling of some liquid moving inside is considered "feeling." So even if the Chatam Sofer and Natan Adler disagreed still I would rather not be the one be lenient in this matter.

In any case the comment of Trump was in no way demeaning unless people specifically want to take it that way. And then they are just being immature.

Normally I would not say anything unless I had something new to add. But I thought that Rav Shach has such an important point that it is worth mentioning. Laws of the Seventh Year and the Jubilee. 4:24.

I have not actually seen it inside but I think I know what he is getting at.

Just for a general introduction let me say a few basic points: (1) that the fruit called an Estrog can be on a tree for many years. (2) Vegetables you count by when they are picked. (3) Fruit goes by when they get ripe. (4) The Etrog goes by when it is picked.
That means for example you have an Estrog that is picked on the forth year of the seven year cycle before the 15th of the month Shevat, then you give tithes to the poor. If it is picked after the 15th of Shevat then you give the second tithe--which means  it has to be taken to Jerusalem.
This is all clear. But then the Rambam says something that seems at first glance very hard to understand. He says an Esrog [or Etrog in modern Hebrew] that grew to the size of an olive on the sixth year even though it is picked on the seventh year if obligated in Trumah and Maasar.
[The Beit Yoseph gives what can only be called a very flaky answer here.  And that is not unusual for him as that Shach and Taz have noticed. He says the Rambam is going like both ways in order to be strict. -both by the time of ripening and of picking.]
Now Rav Shach brings a question from the Minchas Chinuch if the fruit of the seventh year one must let go of and abandon (and if one did not an someone takes it it is stealing) or if we say the Torah has already declared it abandoned by law.

The Minchas Chinuch brings as a possible solution the Mishna where you have five women with a basket of fruit of the seventh year and someone walks up and takes  a fruit and gives it back to them and says you all are married to me by this fruit, they are married. [Obviously they have to agree to this, but we know women are so desperate to be married so things like this happen  every day.]

Without seeing  the details what I think Rav Elazar Menachem Shach is getting at is that the law of the seventh year requires a person to abandon his fruit but not that it is automatically abandoned.Therefore the Etrog that grew slightly in the sixth year but picked on the seventh year is in fact fruit of the seventh year but it is not abandoned until it is picked and so it is obligated in Trumah and Maasar.

The way to understand this is thus: When do the fruits become abandoned for all? When they grow or when they are picked? Well that is to some degree the whole idea when we say by normal fruit you go by when it is ripened and by the etrog when it is picked. So when it is picked it becomes a fruit of the seventh year. But that does mean it is abandoned. It still requires an act of abandonment. lacking that it is like what Rav Shach said about halacha 26 that fruits of areas of עולי מצרים  are obligated in the seventh year and maasar of the poor all at the same time.

Which makes me think that RaV Shach wrote his book in such a  way that the themes interconnect.

Two levels of reality is what we get with Plato. And this has a parallel in Kant.

There is a person with rulership over the whole generation in a hidden way but openly has no  one listening to him.There  is the idea of authority of the Sitra Achra. There is such a  thing as authority of the Dark Side which is hidden.

q23mp3  q23 midi  q23 nwc format

q22

Fear of God is a good thing according to Isaac Blazer. I mean to say it is more than good--it is beneficial. It helps to solve human problems.  At least that is the idea I got from reading the first page of his book אור ישראל The Light of Israel.
The idea is that to work on fear of God solves at least some of the problems that people are looking for answers to.

That is it is not just a good thing but that it has practical benefits --even beyond what people would automatically think.

And it is a truism that reality is often different from what common sense dictates. When farmers are interested in fattening their pigs they fed them non fat milk. Who would have thought?


I could bring some further proofs for this but let me say that this is a theme that comes up in the Old Testament also. In the Old Testament it is mentioned a few times that all God wants from a  person is to fear him.

But we know that coming to fear of God  has lots of obstacles in front of it.


My suggestion is this to create something like Israel Salanter's Beit Musar. That is a study hall that is for learning Classical Musar only. Or even better to have a study hall that is for Musar and Gemara. Nothing else is allowed. Nor is anyone paid to learn. Paying people to learn makes Torah into a business. The worst kind of business because it is based on fraud.  We know learning Torah for money is a sin. So because try to pretend there is some mitzvah in this. If you have to pay someone to learn Torah then their Torah is not worth a penny. And not only that but then they will try to get rid of people that are learning Torah for its own sake and say they are not getting paid because they are not on their high level of learning. It is one big disaster. The main thing to know is by giving people money to learn Torah you are just making things worse. If on the other hand you see someone who is learning Torah for its own sake--to them it is  mitzvah to help.

The seventh year. Shemitah. The argument between Rav Shach and Rav Isaac Soloveitchik. Trumot I:5

I wanted to say over again the argument between Rav Shach and Rav Isaac Soloveitchik. What I want to make clear is the fact that Rav Soloveitchik has mainly two things in the Rambam which indicate that he is right.

The actual argument between them is about what is the area of the Land Of Israel obligated in in those areas that were not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. To Rav I.S. those areas are obligated in all obligations of the land of Israel. Rav Shach agrees with that but adds those areas are also obligated in tithes to the poor.

The proof of Rav I.S. is that the Rambam says Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor.  And he is clear that Amon and Moav are not the same thing as the area of the Land Of Israel  that was not settled by Jews returning from the first exile in Babylonia. [That means we can't use Rashi nor Tosphot to answer this Rambam. ] The other proof of Rav IS is when he says what obligations those areas of Israel are obligated in he says they did not "patur" (make not obligated) them from Trumot and maasrot. This is in clear relation to areas that they did "Patur". So from the straight reading of the Rambam it looks like Rav IS is right. But when you trace things back to the Gemara it looks like Rav Shach is right.

The Gemara brings the statement that is a halacha le'Moshe MiSinai that Amon and Moav give tithes to the poor on the seventh year. But then as a proof it brings this statement דאמר מר הרבה כרכים כיבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשו עולי בבל שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהם עניים בשביעית. To the way of Rav IS this does not seem to make any sense. How do you know Amon Moav give maasar ani? Because some cities in other areas give ספיחים. Not only is there no connection but the the sense of it is why is there a decree to give in place X? Because they did not make a  decree in place Y! To Rav Shach the connection is simple. In both place one gives tithes to the poor.