Kipa is reporting on an interesting psak given by Rav Yuval Cherlo.

According to Rav Cherlo there are some things that women can do under the chuppa at a wedding, in an official capacity, while other things cannot be done by women. The purpose is to find a way to get women more involved, where possible, in the chuppa ceremony as many desire to.

Rav Cherlo warns that any changes must be made within the parameters of halacha, and care must be taken to ensure that any such changes will not be seen by some people as obligations or halachic necessities.

So, according to Rav Cherlo a woman, the kalla, could break the glass instead of (or even in addition to) the chosson. This is not a halachic necessity, but a minhag to break a glass, so a woman could do it as well.

Women, Rav Cherlo says, could also lead the chuppa ceremony. They can read the kesuba under the chuppa. The kalla can also make the bracha of Shehecheyanu on the ring or on her wedding dress, just as the chosson makes the bracha on his tallis.

On the other hand, pun intended, Rav Cherlo is strongly opposed to a two ring ceremony in which the chosson and kalla exchange rings. He even says he is opposed to such a ceremony being held after the chuppa's conclusion and even using a different text, though he concedes some rabbonim allow it after the chuppa and you cannot say it is prohibited..

Rav Cherlo is also opposed to women saying any of the sheva brachos under the chuppa. Sheva brachos requires a minyan so halachically a woman's bracha in this situation would be a bracha l'vatala. He does suggest that if a woman insists on saying a bracha under the chuppa they can add an 8th bracha, without using Hashem's name, using the text similar to that of the bracha made in the days of the Geonim - the bracha is found in the siddur of Rav Amram Gaon. The text of this bracha is:
כהיום הזה בירושלים –
ירבו שמחות בישראל, וינוסו אנחות מישראל,
ירבו בשורות טובות בישראל, ירבו ישועות בישראל,
ירבו נחמות בישראל.
תרבה אהבה בישראל, תרבה ברכה בישראל,
תרבה גילה בישראל, תרבה דיצה בישראל,
ירבה הוד בישראל, ירבה ועד בישראל,
ירבו זכות בישראל, ירבה חתן בישראל,
ירבו ימים טובים בישראל, תרבה כלה בישראל.
יצליחו חתן וכלה, ישמחו שניהם זה עם זה
ויעלצו שניהם זה עם זה,
ישמח חתן בכלה וכלה תשמח בחתן.
ברוך אתה משמח חתן בכלה וכלה בחתן.

Translation:
If it is true that the Rabbanut is taking advantage of is power inappropriately (right now against Rav Riskin, and in other public matters), I will join with those who are working to its dismantlement, against my position until today..

זה לא הוגן לקרוא לחרדים "סחטנים". זכותם לתבוע, כמו כל סיעה. הביקורת צריכה להיות על מי שנענה לאותן תביעות הנוגדות את טובת עם ישראל וזהותו.
— יובל שרלו (@yuval021) April 28, 2015

translation:
it is not appropriate to call the Haredim "extortionists". they have a right to make demands, just like every party does. The criticism should be on those who accept those demands which oppose the good of Am Yisrael and its identity.

This psak is hopefully not relevant to most of us, but it is interesting and definitely is unique - I have not seen this question, or any like it dealt with publicly until now.

Rav Yuval Cherlo was asked a halachic question by someone describing himself as a religious homosexual who is "mitchazek" - becoming more religious, becoming stronger in religion. He says he is being more careful about a number of mtizvos and aveiros..

This fellow explained that he accepted upon himself to be shomer negia, avoid touch generally applicable with the opposite gender but this fellow applied it to men because that is the gender he is attracted to, and not touch other males. This leads to a problem in shul, and other social settings I presume, as he will not shake hands with his fellow congregants and they at times get insulted. He asks Rav Cherlo what he should do.

Unusual question. Interesting self-application. Interesting "chumra" for him to take upon himself.

Rav Cherlo's response was that his acceptance of being careful to not touch other males need not prevent him from shaking hands. Shaking hands, Rav Cherlo says, is a technical matter with absolutely no sexual implications. Even having accepted such behavior on oneself would not require him to enter such problematic situations, as he could still shake hands.
(source: Kipa)

This psak is in line with Rav Cherlo's psak with shaking hands with members of the opposite sex. Rav Cherlo has said, to much criticism, that shaking hands has no sexual implications, and nobody must refrain from shaking. Applying it to man-man is an interesting application, but is in line with his general psak.

Rav Cherlo explained his rationale further to Ynet. He explained that shaking hands with women has no sexual meaning and is not prohibited between man and woman, and between homosexuals it is even more permissible. Giving sexual meaning to acts that have no sexual meaning, Rav Cherlo explains, is itself immodest and destructive to the holiness of the Jewish nation. What is prohibited, is prohibited. What is not prohibited - one should carefully consider the reward of [creating] the prohibition vs the loss [created by said prohibition.

How involved should rabbis be in politics? A timeless question.

Clearly in the circles of UTJ and Shas it is believed that rabbis are as involved in politics as they are in any other aspect of a persons life. Whether it means telling their people how to vote, instructing their politicians how to act in government, what issues to support or refuse support to, etc. In the secular parties obviously there is no room for the rabbinic influence. The big question has always been in the Mafdal - HaBayit HaYehudi. What role do the rabbis play in a political party that profiles itself as being religious, but also says they do not obligate themselves to listen to rabbinic counsel that they might seek on issues pertaining to the government.

Whatever their actual position is, the past few days have seen heavy pressure from the Haredi parties to exert their influence on the Dati Leumi rabbonim to be more involved in telling Naftali Bennet and Habayit Hayehudi how to act regarding issues of governance, and that they their counsel be followed.

A rabbi can definitely have an opinion regarding politics, and he can say it just like anyone else can. The question is if he should state it as a member of the clergy, as if that gives him some sort of authoritative voice greater than that of other people, or not.

It is fine for a party to choose its leader and say they follow a certain persons decision, whether that person is a rabbi, a guru, a politician, a wise person or a total fool - if thats what the constituents want, if thats who they say they are, then they should follow the counsel they claim to be integral to the party.

If a party says it might consult with rabbis but eventually makes their decisions on their own, perhaps taking into account the advice received from others, including rabbis, it should not suddenly come as a surprise when they do not listen to the rabbis. they never committed to. And if you don't like that, don't support that party, but don't tell them how they should make their decisions.

Someone asked Rav Yuval Cherlo how Habayit Hayehudi can ignore the psak halacha of the gedolei torah (let's assume he is referring to the gedolei torah of the DL communities and not insisting Bayit Yehudi follow the gedolei torah of the haredi world), thereby transgressing a commandment in the Torah of following the rabbis instructions. The questioner suggests, or perhaps demands, that Rav Cherlo formulate a psak demanding that the party follow the words of the chachomim.

Rav Cherlo's response is very telling. He makes a dfinitive statement that rabbonim should not get involved in giving political instructions, but should keep to the realm of the spiritual alone.

Rav Cherlo goes on to explain that the political party is made up of messengers of the people who voted for them. They, as messengers, are therefore obligated to act in accordance with the commitment - in a party that committed to follow a certain rabbi or any other specific person, they must do so, as that is why the supporters voted for them. Same if a party has committed to following the decisions of a certain person.

Regarding the Bayit Yehudi party, it can be investigated as to what the party has committed itself to doing, and it should be demanded that they fulfill their commitments. If they committed to the decision making process being in the hands of the party institutions, they must do so and cannot now go to a rav and ask for a psak. Their voters sent them under specific conditions, and changing that is theft and deception of the community that sent them.

At the same time, it is always good to take counsel with the gedolei torah and with wise people, and the spiritual world can definitely advise them and give counsel regarding the appropriate spiritual issues, but their obligation is to their voters, not to the rabbis..
(source: Srugim)

Rav Cherlo's response makes clear the position of the non-haredi religious party. They never committed to following the rabbonim, just to taking counsel from them and taking that advice under consideration. Their actual obligation is based on what they told the voter, in their platform, their decision-making process would be, and whatever they promised during the election campaigns to fulfill. To Rav Cherlo and others, there is a clear distinction between spiritual matters and politics.

Other rabbis, those affiliated with the haredi community (and maybe some others as well in the DL community) would dispute that and say the spiritual encompasses politics just like it encompasses every aspect of a person's life, and therefore they should be the ones instructing the politicians what positions to support or not.

Each one can have his opinion on the matter, but it seems wrong to me for each one to try to dictate to the other what they must do. Each one has its own interests and styles, and each must follow the direction laid out to their supporters.

.

Rav Ovadiah Yosef should be granted a refuah shleimah after having suffered what is being called a minor stroke, and people are asked to pray for the recovery and health of Ovadiah ben Georgia.

When I first heard of the rav's illness, and the initial reaction, I said, cynically, that I wonder how the incident can best be used to get votes for Shas. With this happening so close to the elections, it won't be difficult at all, and will definitely be taken advantage of.

The initial response of Shas people to news media was that the Rav suffered this health issue due to being so bothered and disturbed by the issue of the possible drafting of yeshiva students. Shortly after it became an issue of blaming Amnon Yitzchak for causing the stroke due to running his own party and things that might have been said that caused the rav great distress. Clearly my cynicism had played out, and will likely to continue to play out as Shas leaders will surely call on the people to vote Shas to show Rav Ovadiah the people are against those who try to usurp the Torah and harm Shas, and thereby they will be a part of the healing of Maran haRav Ovadiah.

I could not say it as well as Rav Yuval Cherlo. Rav Cherlo was asked if this is perhaps a sign that rav Ovadiah is correct and we should now be voting for Shas, in recognition of this sign from heaven.

Rav Cherlo's response was that that first we must all pray for Rav Ovadiah's recovery and said how important his Torah learning and his psak is. Beyond that, Rav Ovadiah's learning and wisdom has nothing to do with the fact that manipulation being waged to take advantage of his failing health. Suddenyl people know why he is sick, as if they have achieved prophecy, and they are recruiting God to convince people to vote for them.

Rav Cherlo gives two reasons to explain his words:

1. To claim they are right in their analysis they have to claim that they are prophets, to be able to directly connect between the different events, of his health and of political stances. We know the Rav is in poor health right now, and we know he is troubled by the issue of the possible drafting of yeshiva students. Connecting the two is only one possibility, not a definitive situation. Anybody who says that something specific happened for a specific reason, one that involves Hashem, is lying. He doesn't know.
2. These events always "prove" that the one commenting is right, and was right before. It is always someone else who is guilty or wrong. The commenter never finds the fault in himself - just in others. Is it possible that the potential for drafting yeshiva students is what caused Rav Ovadiah's weakness? Yes, it is possible.  But it is also possible that other things that those close to him do that they should not be doing is what caused it. Perhaps the way they relate to the issue of converts, which involves commandments from the Torah.

We all want the Rav to get better, but his health has nothing to do with proving any political stance or for which party one should vote.
(source: INN and Srugim)

There is a petition being passed around for signing to protest the plans for construction in RBS C2. The petition is based on the flaws in the planning of the area and the infrastructure of the city being unable to bear so much new growth with inadequate plans for upgrading it.

Somebody decided sent a halachic question to Rav Yuval Cherlo to see if it is ok to oppose construction in Eretz Yisrael.

From the Moreshet website:

Around our neighborhood, there are a number of plans for the development of new neighborhoods that are meant to add about 200,000 new residents within 15 years. The new neighborhoods are planned with inadequate infrastructure of public and religious buildings, schools, mikvas, shopping areas and city access roads.
Right now the infrastructure in Bet Shemesh and the surrounding areas is deficient and lacking enough public buildings and appropriate roads. The main access road to the city - Highway 38 - was already declared in 2005 as a road in danger of collapse. In our neighborhood with thousands of religious families, there is only one working mikva for women.
We oppose the construction of these new neighborhoods because the new neighbors will add much more traffic on the mikvas, schools, shopping centers, and roads in the area and in our neighborhood, that already cannot bear the current traffic levels.
Are we allowed to oppose  and delay the building of a new neighborhood in Eretz Yisrael until the city infrastructure will be installed to bear the future residents of those neighborhoods?

Rav Cherlo's answer:

My answer is not for the specific situation and for the facts as described. I am familiar with the reality on a superficial level (I drive on highway 38 daily) and I estimate that what you are saying is correct, but I do not have the tools to know if it is or is it, what the plans are, what the infrastructure is, etc. Therefore, my answer will only involve a halachic perspective and not the specific details.
The mitzva of settling Eretz Yisrael does not include or obligate building without plans or infrastructure, and with serious damage to the environment. Just the opposite - fulfilling this mitzva properly is specifically by planning properly, by building appropriate infrastructures, and tryign as much as possible that the construction should be "green" with minimal damage to the environment.
Therefore, it is definitely allowed for you to oppose, and perhaps even an obligation, if they are not done properly.
In the halacha itself, in the 2nd perek of Baba Basra, there are some ecological rules that teach us the halachic trend to take these issues into account, and to include them in our decision making. It is the responsibility of the local governing body, and of the construction committee, and they always must remember that the mitzva of yishuv eretz yisrael is in the way of "yishuv", with the predominance of halacha in this realm, and not by sticking people into places without infrastructure.
Obviously, this is not the only factor when looking from a halachic perspective. Another factor to consider is to not be like Soddom and Gemorroh and not prevent the good from other people. You need to not just oppose, but also to say that if the appropriate conditions will come about the community will open itself to others, and the expansion of the place will be a bracha for everyone.

(Hattip: CW)
------------------------------------------------------
Reach thousands of readers with your ad by advertising on Life in Israel
------------------------------------------------------

In the saga about the religious soldiers leaving the IDF ceremonies when female soldiers sing, two opinions have recently been published that are worth looking at, whether you agree with them or not. These are opinions published by Rav Yuval Cherlo and Rav Shlomo Aviner.

Rav Cherlo writes a long piece about it, and I am only going to point out bits of it (read the entire responsa here). Basically, Rav Cherlo says soldiers should not leave when female soldiers sing. Listening to women sing is prohibited - there are leniencies that can be applied in situations, but in general it is prohibited. Halacha does not just deal with the individual, but with the entire tzibbur.

The army is a community of sorts, and it cannot make room for each soldier to decide things on his own or to each ask his own personal rav what to do. The army is a tzibbur, and that tzibbur has to have one rav directing it, and everyone within needs to follow. The army is not a religious body, it is made up of all types of people, and the psak is going to take that into account - while we must fight to improve the situation, in the meantime the psak is going to be the most basic, lenient psak to be inclusive of all the various types of people. And while in the communal arena we have to accept the fact, for now, that the psak must be lenient, in our private arena that obligates us to accept more upon ourselves, in the sense of learning more, being more makpid, etc.

Rav Aviner also paskened that soldiers should not leave such ceremonies. I think his psak is surprising considering how "extreme" he normally is on erva issues such as requiring separation of the genders from a very young age. Again, Rav Aviner also says that we must try to get the commanders to stop women from singing and avoid such situations, as it is harms many soldiers, while women singing in army ceremonies is no higher necessity.

However, while such things continue to happen, a soldier who finds himself in such a situation should ask of his officer to be relived from the ceremony, and in exchange he should ask to be given an assignment instead. if the officer should refuse, he should make a personal request, such as to be given the rest of the day off to go home and see his family and instead, again, offer to do an extra shift of guard duty or scraping the pots.

If that also does not work, he should then remain at the ceremony. At this point he has no choice. An example he gives is that his yeshiva.. Ateret Kohanim, is in the Old City of Jerusalem at a junction where many Christians pass by while singing their church songs that we are not allowed to listen to. It is not prohibited for me to go to yeshiva because I might hear their singing  - rather I don't listen to them. I hear, but I do not listen.

Rav Aviner goes on and says we do not have time to fight with each other. the army has too much to do, protecting the southern border, the issue with the Palestinians, etc. That the upper echelons of the army need to deal right now with omen singing is a disturbance of them and takes away from more important things. Are we little children that we really need them to get involved in this?

An interesting question was asked of Rav Yuval Cherlo, regarding boys wearing earrings. Some people have responded to the discussion with criticism of Rav Cherlo, saying things like he shouldn't be involved in this, why not discuss allowing makeup, etc. I disagree - guys have been wearing earrings for a long time, and I find it interesting that someone asked if it is ok.

The question posed was by a father saying his 15 year old son wants to wear an earring. They are a religious family and he will allow it only if there is a clear hetter for it in halacha. He repeats that he wants the answer to be clear and not disputable.

Rav Cherlo answered that:
1. It is difficult today to see an earring as specifically female, especially when it is worn in only one ear.

2.  There is opposition in halacha to some modes of dress, due to the issue of non-Jewish culture. While difficult to say it is clearly prohibited for this reason, if his purpose in wearing it is as an expression of distancing oneself from Judaism, then it is prohibited.

3. from an educational perspective, the parents should challenge their son. Since it is not clearly prohibited, but it might be wrong for cultural reasons, yet it is difficult to force a 15 year old boy to do things against his will, this is what should be done: Allow the boy to wear the earring, but because it might be an expression of rebellion, despite the boy's denial of any such intention, explain to the boy that the allowance and permission is dependent on going through a strengthening process in spiritual matters at the same time, with him choosing the path. This way, it wont be against halacha, and will prevent the earring from turning into a symbol of rebellion. Rather, it will even be the stimulus for spiritual inspiration.

Rav Yuval Cherlo was asked an interesting question that deals with doing chessed and providing assistance to Palestinians.

The question asked was a clinician in the audio department of Tel HaShomer Hospital. She said there is a project they are embarking on to install hearing aids to those in need in the Palestinian Authority. She wants to know if she can be a part of the project.

Her doubt is because she does not know if it is right to help out people who are the enemy of Israel, while on the other hand her participation would give a tremendous amount of experience in this field. As well, the project will be publicized, and she does not know how it will be accepted among the Israeli public.

Rav Cherlo responded to each point:

1. Do we want to deepen the level of hatred? Can we not perform a humanitarian act to people who suffer, even in the Palestinian Authority?
2. Being aware of the fact that they are the enemy, I am also aware, Rav Cherlo says, that an absurd situation could come of this where these hearing aids will be installed in someone who performed acts of terror against Israel. Not ignoring that fact, from a practical perspective, it is our duty to try to accomplish 2 things at the same time - fighting against terror, defending ourselves, attacking those who wish to kill us, and at the same time search for a way to bring down the level of hatred. This act will not decrease our ability to fight against terror, but it will possibly plant other seeds.
3. The question of how it will look to the Israeli public is secondary. There is no such thing as the "Israeli public". There are those who will attack you for cooperating with the enemy, and there are those who will embrace you and call you a seeker of peace and bring you to their fold of people willing to destroy the settlements. Both are very upsetting - those who will praise you and those who will attack. The most important thing is to do the right thing, to go with your truth, even at a heavy public price. 

To begin, I feel it is important to mention that this psak was given in a b'dieved situation - after the fact.

Rav Yuval Cherlo was asked by a person who wanted to know if he did the right or wrong thing when his car alarm went off on a Friday night at 2 AM and they didnt hear it, the police came having been called by a disturbed neighbor. The police told them to shut the alarm, but they said they cannot as it is Shabbos. The police suggested they give over the keys and the code to the car, and they the police would shut it off. The person then handed over the keys and said "do what you want".

The person then asked a two part question:

1. in retrospect was that the right or wrong thing to do?
2. in the future, if it should happen again, if there is no non-jew around to enlist his services, would he be able to shut it off right away himself to prevent the Jewish neighbor from calling the police?

(source: Srugim: my translation, after lightly editing the ridiculous results of Google Translate)

The prophets of Israel relate at length the collapse of the rule of various kinds, many prophecies deal with the future kingdoms of evil. Even when very strong empires rose to power, Israel's prophets foretold that the end of all power is collapse, if it loses the foundation that justifies its existence. Human pride and evil regime are exposed as a shaky foundation, and can collapse quickly. This is part of the general inquiry about human power exist in the world, and the recognition that even if a similar kingdom is eternal - the speed of the collapse may be quickly. Not only that, but one of the ingredients (though not the only one) of the riots in Arab capitals is the aspiration of freedom and basic human soul, and charged that limit where people enslave others. This message is also regularly words of the Prophets.

It is difficult to evaluate whether the riots in the Arab world good or bad. On the one hand, they have a series of liberation from tyranny, and the countries we see them moderate, both countries towards the citizens and evil bondage. On the other hand, it is not clear that the collapse of a current government will lead to better rule. On the contrary, it is possible that it will lead to anarchy and terrible bloodshed, accompanied by many revolutions, where in the name of the aspiration to freedom they become murderous enslaves; radical Islamic movements can take advantage of the opportunity, on behalf of God behave like the devil; new regime restoration can be a tyrant no less than the last. Therefore, it seems that it would be wrong to wait a while to decipher the meaning of events; and it is possible that for some time the world will move on as usual.

However, the words of prophecy remain eternal. We need to assimilate within us the recognition that all factual assumption on which we base our behavior - is shaky to begin with. Especially when it comes to the rule and the kingdoms, especially when it comes to enslavement and preventing freedom. All political assessments are assessments on probation; all alliances are conditional; all that is dependent on humans - can change. This requires us to care more when we plan our future. And more importantly - it shows that we need to also to go back to other existing strengths. These strengths are the strengths of morality, justice strengths, strengths and grace. These too are not guaranteed, and sometimes in our world also the righteous is defeated  (the first war in history, Kane defeated Abel). However, decentralization of various strengths, and things about which we base our lives is one of the most important lessons shocking world order systems.

So if we add it all up: recognition of the importance of government along with the claim to freedom; recognition of the royal forces together in tandem with moral forces, the moral and just; dealing with the real world with the realization that everything could change one threat of the sword - we will see that we will deal that much better with the challenges we face, and we will be able to listen more attentively to the prophets that  teach us about the great importance of the additional powers over the State's power. We will see that we are already able to come to this conclusion more strongly because of the earthquake that is occurring around us
---

I wonder if he includes Rav Nir Ben Artzi in his list of prophets.. Just joking, but it is clear that the tumultuous events around us are something we need to be concerned about and take lesson from.

The opening of a new supermarket in a small area where the makolet guy controlled the shopping until then always raises a dilemma of where to shop. Do you shop in the supermarket at better prices or at the makolet to support a local business run by a local guy (usually). This is a dilemma around the world - wherever a Walmart or a Target opens up a store in the US there are fights about them putting the local small businesses out of business. In RBS for example there is such a dilemma when KLY has their produce sale at cheap prices and it might take away customers from the local stores.

Someone presented the question to Rav Cherlo. A new branch of the Rami Levi supermarket is opening up at "Tzomet Gush Etzion", and the opening has created a dilemma for people. Should they shop at Rami Levi for better prices or continue to shop at the local makolets that have been around until now despite the prices being higher?

Rav Cherlo's response was a suggestion that the consumer should divide his purchases between the supermarket and the makolet. Buy 1/3 of your needs at the makolet and 2/3 at the supermarket.

Rav Cherlo said that a person really has no obligation to the makolet guy. A person has the right to buy his goods in whatever store he wants to save money, even if it comes at the expense of the local makolet guy.. However, the Torah also obligates us to be concerned about supporting our fellow Jew and finding a way to not harm him in a way that would be disastrous to him.

Rav Cherlo therefore came to the conclusion that it would be appropriate to divide one's purchases, with 1/3 being purchased at the local makolet and 2/3 at the supermarket where he will benefit from better prices.

No running marathons, but no excuse to be lazy...

Rav Yuval Cherlo was asked a two part question regarding the permissibility of running marathons. The question posed was really for a 10km race (which Israelis tend to call 10km marathons), bu it applies equally to marathons or any distance of a race.

The question asked was:

1. Is there a problem of tzniyus, considering that runners running in such races are focused each on his or her own performance and running and is not focused on the lack of tzniyus around him?
2. How to jibe the bodies internal desire to run, or to do other activities, with the lessons he had been taught in yeshiva about only learning Torah and not be involved in things and activities that take one away from that.

Rav Cherlo's response, also in two parts, was:

1. One should not participate in mixed physical activities. Being that the question posed is regarding a race that by its very nature uses immodest dress and is not the common clothing worn by men and women in everyday life, it is prohibited to participate in the race. The premise of a runner being focused on his run and ambivalent to those around him, Rav Cherlo says, is not a factor.
2. It is good to run, and perhaps even an obligation to run or partake in other physical activities, in order to stay healthy and to treat properly the vessel given to us by God. That has nothing to do with participating in any specific race, as it can be performed in many other venues. This position should be also the position of those who oppose the pursuits of any other hobbies, due to this issue related to health and vitality especially in light of the poor nutrition we have nowadays.

Rav Cherlo issued an interesting psak. He was asked if one could attend a shiur delivered by someone who is suspected of having committed crimes - while he has not yet been convicted and is currently only suspected of the crimes (in the situation described the rav has been indicted for financial crimes and breach of trust but has not yet gone to trial) - His Torah is very good, and he has not yet been found guilty of anything, or maybe for teaching Torah a person should be held to higher standards?

Rav Cherlo's answer is that participating in such a shiur is being a partner to chilul hashem, as if saying that a good shiur of Torah is more important than being moral and ethical. In this situation, where te rav has not been convicted and is only suspected of the crimes, one should not make a public protest against him, but as a personal decision one should decide on his own to not learn from this rav.

While the Chief Rabbinate has yet to respond, as far as I know, to the proposal proposed by Professor Weiss, Rav Yuval Cherlo has responded.

Rav Cherlo completely rejects the proposal.

Someone on Moreshet asked Rav Cherlo his opinion about the proposal. Rav Cherlo said "There is no worse proposal for Yom Ha'Atzmaut than this one, in the sense of unifying the people. This is simply a continuation of the disconnection from the State. It will cause a greater tear between us and the secular society, it will uproot Yom Ha'Atzmaut from its religious meaning, and there will probably not be even one Haredi person who will join the celebrations....
It pains me greatly, this trend of disconnecting frmo the State. A number of years ago I thought so,, and it is against the words of Chaza"l about the meaning of "One Nation in the Land", it is against the thanking of Hashem for the State, and obviously it will also achieve nothing."

Sometimes unusual and fascinating, while evn heart-wrenching, dilemmas are presented before the Rabbis for resolution.

Here is one that was presented to Rav Yuval Cherlo. A young man writes to Rav Cherlo that his family was not Jewish and his parents divorced a few years ago. His mother moved to Bnei Brak to be near her work. Over time she became closer to Judaism and eventually converted. Now, he says, she has become haredi.... Since her transformation, his life has become very difficult. She tells him because she converted he is not her kid, she cannot hug him and touch him, he cannot touch the dishes lest he defile them, she threatens to throw him out of the house, since he is not her son anyway (because she is a convert).
He asks what he can do, if her claims are true that he cannot give her a kiss, he is not interested in converting, and he is very distressed about this.

Rav Cherlo writes back that while this case sounds extreme, and he has never heard of such things before (and he is not familiar first-hand so he states that it is an estimated response and not definite), it is however common that people who go through serious social changes become more extreme, in an attempt to be accepted in the new group.

Rav Cherlo explains that she is allowed to hug him, as that is a mental issue and not halachic, and she is still his mother. While certain halachic realities are created and there is a distinction in halacha between them, the relationship as mother-child is a mental connection. Also he explains that the boy does not defile the plates by using them, but she would not be able to eat from his cooking...

Rav Cherlo advises the boy to contact the rabbonim she is involved with and converted through to assist in patching the relationship and straightening her out.

Read the original for the full heart-wrenching story, in the words of the young man and Rav Cherlo.

The mother sounds crazy to me... to be able to treat a kid like that? conversion or no conversion, whther some of these issues are real or just her becoming too extreme, there are ways to deal with all the issues pleasantly, and not hysterically. How can a mother just flip a switch like that and treat her son that way? Hey - maybe she is possessed by a dybbuk!

Somebody asked Rav Sherlo, on the Moreshet website, a shailo if blogging is permitted on Chol Hamoed.

The question is posed three-fold, specifically, but not limited to, his blog which contains Torah content:

1. Is it prohibited to write a blog on Chag, especially if the content is not specifically connected to the chag and to the Chol Hamoed?
2. Is it permitted to write a blog on Chol Hamoed about the question "if blogging on Chol Hamoed is a denigration of the holiday", especially if the authors conclusion or his posek's conclusion is that writing blogs on Chol Hamoed about general issues is prohibited?
3. Would writing a blog on Chol Hamoed be considered a "Davar Ha'Aveid" - something that will be lost if not done in a timely fashion - as regular blog readers might stop following the blog [if they do not see new posts] (and this might cause them to read other blogs that have less Torah content)?

The questions seem a bit convoluted to me. I don't even know if I understand the 2nd question. He should have just asked is blogging about general content allowed or prohibited, and is blogging about Torah content allowed or prohibited? But I guess his shailoh was more personal and less general, so he was asking specifically about his blogging.

Rav Sherlo's answer was that: Blogs on Torah related materials can be written on Chol HaMoed, for a couple of reasons:

1. writing on a computer is generally not considered by the poskim as writing, in regards to requiring it to be for the needs of Chol Hamoed.
2. There is extra reason to be lenient when writing words of Torah.
3. Even more so, it is preferable that people should surf to sites such as these [sites of Torah content]
   

If the conclusion of the poskim would have been that it is prohibited, it would be brazen to write a blog on Chol Hamoed, like toiveling in a mikveh while holding a sheretz, unlessit was for the purpose of avoiding issurim.

Blogs that are closed, that might cause its readers to abandon it for other sites, and they have intrinsic value in their existence, how much more so is it justified to be written on Chol Hamoed.

While Rav Sherlo is specifically addressing a site with Torah content, as he discusses the added value of the Torah content as extra reasons for allowing the blogging and updating of material and content, he is also allowing general blogging to be done on Chol Hamoed. Both with the hetter of it being considered "a loss" because of readers abandoning it, and with the hetter of it not being considered writing.

I particularly liked the hetter of it being a "davar aveid" because of the decrease in readership.

(Thank you David for letting me know about the tshuva on the train this morning)

Rav Yuval Cherlow was asked if a blind man is allowed to touch his female date (touch/feel her face) to "see what she looks like".

Rav Cherlow responded that in this situation he is allowed to feel her face, and perhaps even obligated to. His reasoning, in brief is:

1. this touching has no sexual meaning. it is purely for the sake of "seeing" her. As such, it overrides the rabbinic prohibition of negiah.
2. Sometimes there are reasons to push away a prohibition, which is what a rav posek is for. For example, it is normally prohibited to look at a woman. But chazal allowed it for the purpose of seeing the woman you are considering marrying.
3. Perhaps he is obligated to, as chazal required a man to see his wife before marrying her, for "v'ahavta l'rei'acha kamocha". This is the only way the blind man can acocmplish this in this situation.
   
4. Halacha treats blind people differently. For example, turning a light on on shabbos for a blind woman giving birth is allowed, even though it does not help her see. but it calms her down. Even though this fellow cannot see his wife, knowing how she looks is still important to him.

Sounds a bit farfetched to me. Who can't think of all sorts of problems this would lead to.. such as where he touches (by "mistake" obviously), considering he can't see, along with people posing blind to take advantage of this and other problems...

While the army and government apparently has no problem picking unnecessary fights against Jews in Hebron and sending plenty of troops in to shut down the area, the situation in the area of Gaza is much different.

There, the government has been waffling for 3.5 years already. They are constantly saying that we will eventually have to go in and clean out the terrorists and rockets, yet 3.5 years later they are still saying the time is not right for an operation. Meantime, despite truces and ceasefires and whatnot, rockets are still raining down daily on the communities surrounding the Gaza border, even up to Ashkelon and Ashdod.

Gilad Erdan - a current Likud MK, is a pretty good guy. I have liked him, since he began to advance in the Likud ranks about 5 years ago. Erdan even has in his favor the fact that he stood up to Ariel Sharon and opposed the disengagement in the votes leading up to that period. He is a man of integrity, and he considers himself to be a candidate for the Justice Minister position ina future Netanyahu government (though really he is dreaming if he thinks Bibi will give it to him over Meridor, though he is qualified)

Gilad Erdan made a very interesting suggestion and proposed a law the other day. He proposed that they should take Hamas affiliated prisoners and use them as human shields in the communities around Gaza. He figures that with Hamas people possibly turning into victims, they would be reluctant to continue shooting the rockets at us.

I personally think that is a great idea. The only problem with it is that it is a Geneva war crime to use a live prisoner as a human shield. So I would suggest that we kill the prisoners first and then use them as dead human shields, which is not a war crime (maybe killing them is, I am not sure). But anyway, shooting rockets at innocent civilians is also a Geneva War Crime, and they don't seem too overly concerned, so I don't think we should be either.

In response to that suggestion and proposed law, the issue was raised as to what Judaism's position would be on such an idea. Is it allowed?

Rav Yuval Cherlow of the Hesder Yeshiva of Petach Tikva was asked the question. Rav Cherlow answered saying, "I see no ethical problem using a Hamas prisoner as a shield against attacks from Hamas (only from Hamas - it would not be allowed to use a Hamas prisoner as a shield against attacks from other enemy). There are other considerations, so I am only answering from a theoretical viewpoint. When two forces are fighting a war with each other, and Hamas presents itself not as a band of terrorists, but as a ruling force, we need to relate to them as a battle between two forces, and then such behavior would be allowed."

So it is ok halachically as well. Now we just have to get the law passed, so while the government continues to waffle and refuse to expend any effort in Gaza, but spend all their energy fighting Jews in Hebron, this will be a good solution to slow down the rocket barrage yet still not fight.