הרב כהנא על חג החנוכה לפעמים צריך אלימות,
הרב כהנא בשנות השבעים בכנס של הליגה להגנה יהודית.
האם המכבים זרקו פרחים על היונים?
לסרטים נוספים אתר הזכרון לרב כהנא
www.rabbikahane.org
Disclaimer: The foregoing is my basic impression of the topic, but I am not yet strongly opinionated about it.
Today’s Charedi Torah greats generally oppose the idea of secular studies in yeshiva, certainly for the majority.
But anyone who knows history is aware that the idea of combining secular studies and Torah learning is not new. The Rishonim did so, and so did other various generations. And it worked just fine. Does this mean doing so is a good idea today? Perhaps not (we hope to explain why elsewhere). But the Chazon Ish writes in Kovetz Iggros 3:
מנויה וגמורה בסודם של רבותינו גדולי הדורות שלא להרשות לימודי חיצוניות לבני הישיבות בזמן שקידתם בתורה בהתלהבות נעורים…
The plural “Doros” seems inaccurate.
Everyone knows the story of the Chafetz Chaim baring his heart when asked for the source of his prohibition on studying languages in Yeshiva. But now you know why he needed to be asked in the first place, and why his unique response was the only appropriate one.
And the matter of married adults is a separate one.
Life insurance is a bet against yourself: You live, you lose!
The Bet goes something like this:
You: I bet I will die. I am afraid of death and am willing to pay to avoid fear. Using my fear as part of my mental-emotional equation, I “calculate” my chances of dying are high enough to justify the cost of insurance.
Insurance company: We bet you will live. We know you will never stop being afraid, and your fear is our main resource. Our actuaries have done the math and determined that the odds of your death are low enough we can budget our multi-billion dollar annual expenditures, including the salaries of our thousands of employees and our new skyscraper — a testament to us being on the right side of the deal.
May 30, 2017
When we think about terrorism we most often think about the horrors of a Manchester-like attack, where a radicalized suicide bomber went into a concert hall and killed dozens of innocent civilians. It was an inexcusable act of savagery and it certainly did terrorize the population.
What is less considered are attacks that leave far more civilians dead, happen nearly daily instead of rarely, and produce a constant feeling of terror and dread. These are the civilians on the receiving end of US and allied bombs in places like Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, and elsewhere.
Last week alone, US and “coalition” attacks on Syria left more than 200 civilians dead and many hundreds more injured. In fact, even though US intervention in Syria was supposed to protect the population from government attacks, US-led air strikes have killed more civilians over the past month than air strikes of the Assad government. That is like a doctor killing his patient to save him.
Do we really believe we are fighting terrorism by terrorizing innocent civilians overseas? How long until we accept that “collateral damage” is just another word for “murder”?
The one so-called success of the recent G7 summit in Sicily was a general agreement to join together to “fight terrorism.” Have we not been in a “war on terrorism” for the past 16 years? What this really means is more surveillance of innocent civilians, a crackdown on free speech and the Internet, and many more bombs dropped overseas. Will doing more of what we have been doing do the trick? Hardly! After 16 years fighting terrorism, it is even worse than before we started. This can hardly be considered success.
They claim that more government surveillance will keep us safe. But the UK is already the most intrusive surveillance state in the western world. The Manchester bomber was surely on the radar screen. According to press reports, he was known to the British intelligence services, he had traveled and possibly trained in bomb-making in Libya and Syria, his family members warned the authorities that he was dangerous, and he even flew terrorist flags over his house. What more did he need to do to signal that he may be a problem? Yet somehow even in Orwellian UK, the authorities missed all the clues.
But it is even worse than that. The British government actually granted permission for its citizens of Libyan background to travel to Libya and fight alongside al-Qaeda to overthrow Gaddafi. After months of battle and indoctrination, it then welcomed these radicalized citizens back to the UK. And we are supposed to be surprised and shocked that they attack?
The real problem is that both Washington and London are more interested in regime change overseas than any blowback that might come to the rest of us back home. They just do not care about the price we pay for their foreign policy actions. No grand announcement of new resolve to “fight terrorism” can be successful unless we understand what really causes terrorism. They do not hate us because we are rich and free. They hate us because we are over there, bombing them.
From Lewrockwell.com, here.