good solid, even quick, 5km run this morning.

even though I went out a  little bit later than usual, the weather was great - cool air, not humid, already sunny and bright...i had to keep it down to 5 because of my late start

whoever did this is very talented..

cute..

The funniest thing I saw today was a headline in Kikar that said Struggle in Geula: Residents Against Public Telephones. I could only imagine what this was about... are we back in 1990 that they need to fight against public payphones?

Reading the article though is interesting. The fight isnt against this new modern invention called the payphone. It seems that recently people are calling these payphones and the ringing phones piques the curiosity of kids who answer the phone. It seems that these callers who get the kids to answer the phones then talk with these kids about "tzniyus issues", obviously not how to guard and protect ones tzniyus, and the kids get seduced or at minimum hear things they should not be hearing.

As part of the fight, residents are sticking stickers on these phones warning passerby to not answer should it ring. Being that this did not help, as it can't be expected to, some people are going to all the payphones and snipping their cables.

The proposed solution is to get Bezeq to make these phones only outgoing with no incoming calls possible.

Another solution would be for Bezeq to evaluate how many calls are actually made on these phones and see if it is necessary to keep them installed on the streets of Geula, or anywhere in the country, and remove them if they are deemed not necessary or useful. Who uses pay phones nowadays? Just about every person has a cellphone, whether kosher or not, in their pocket. Kids almost always borrow from someone on the street when they need to make a call to their parents. I would not even know where to get a pay card for these payphones nowadays. Just get rid of these things. I am sure that even in Geula they are not necessary in 2018.

A rav in Tzfat, Rav Bistrisky, issued a psak telling the community that they should not be bringing children to the mikva.

I have said many times that the hospital is not a place for sick people and the mikva is not a place for children. When I first saw the headline, I assumed it was validation of my opinion about mikvas. But then it turned out that Rabbi Bistrisky has a different reason you should be keeping your children away from the mikva, other than the one most people are probably thinking of.

According to INN, Rabbi Bistrisky said the mikva is a dangerous place for children and there is a dangerous threat of drowning, though he did add the other form of danger as an implied issue he did not want to expand on..

Rabbi Bistrisky pointed to a recent incident in which a child was drowning in the mikva and a nearby adult saved him. With other similar incidents around the country occurring recently, in mikvas pools and even in a bucket, this is a danger that we must pay more attention to.

A Haredi couple from Jerusalem decided it was time to end the marriage and get a divorce.

The time came to divide the assets and a dispute arose as to who has the rights to the jewelry amassed over the years. Mrs claimed them as hers - she received and accepted them as gifts and acquired them with a kinyan when given to her, but Mr claimed that he had given them to her as his loving wife over the years for the various holidays - along with the divorce, all those gifts are revoked and become his property. The gifts, he claims, were really for the purpose of her being beautiful for him, as long as they are together.

The dayaim analyzed the claims and found various sources in the responsa on the matter. They agreed to write separate individual decisions, as they each leaned a different way on this, and then a joint final decision.

Dayan 1 opined that based on the Shulchan Aruch and Rama the jewelry belongs to her as generally today the woman keeps her clothing and jewelry.

Dayan 2 opined that when the husband gives jewelry as a gift it is not a full and complete gift but for him to enjoy through her, so upon divorce she has to return them to him.

Dayan 3, the tie breaker, opined that in this specific case no decision is necessary as to which opinion is correct as to ownership of the jewelry, as the woman already sold the jewelry so the debate is regarding who keeps the money from the sale of that jewelry.

The Dayan continued that because in this case the alimony was set very low, taking into account the fact that Mr is an avreich and has little income and no money, and taking into account that Mrs sold the jewelry in order to have money to use for household needs, as a supplement to the alimony, there is no need to decide between the dayanim on the issue under discussion (ownership of the jewelry) and, in this specific case, Mrs should not have to return the money to Mr.

And the joint psak was written in accordance with the conclusion of Dayan 3.

sources: Behadrei, Haredim10

Yesterday I visited a young widow grieving the death of her husband, murdered last week by a Palestinian terrorist. I was heartbroken by her tears and those of her in-laws who had lost their only son. Today, the PA Foreign Ministry condemned my visit. Nothing more to say.

— David M. Friedman (@USAmbIsrael) July 31, 2018

he looks so young and is so talented and accomplished!