Fake News in Jewish Halacha

Jewish legal/ritual law is codified in the Halacha. Its roots are in the Written Law and the Oral Law. Can such a system provide up-to-date regulation for matters and concerns that did not exist 3000 years ago?

For example, the issue of "fake news".

The Shulchan Arukh (composed in the 16th century) at OH 222 stipulates that 

על שמועות שהן טובות לו לבדו מברך שהחיינו ואם הן טובות לו ולאחרים מברך הטוב והמטיב

when one hears good news that applies to himself alone, the blessing is the 'Shecheyanu' and if the news applies to others, the blessing is 'HaTov v'HaMeitiv".

And the Mishnah Brura (published in the 19th century) of the Chofetz Chaim adds:

 ודוקא כששמע מפי אדם נאמן וזה האדם ראה בעצמו אבל אם שמע שמועה [בין שמועה טובה שצריך לברך עליה הטוב והמטיב או שהחיינו בין שמועה רעה שצריך לברך עליה דיין האמת] ואין המגיד נאמן או שהמגיד לא ראה בעצמו לא יברך 

but only in the instance that he hears from a reliable person which is a person who saw it himself but if it is hearsay [either good or bad news which would affect the type of blessing to be said] and the person is unreliable or if the person relaying the news did not see it himself, he should not pronounce a blessing.

There it is. Don't go with "fake news".

And if you are told news, don't believe it until you can resource it reliably.

^

Halacha Digests and Snippets Rejected

The literature of Halacha decisors, those who review all previous writings from the Talmud on through the Geonim, Rishonim and Achronim, in its classic sense has all but withered.

Except for a very few, when you buy a "book" of halacha, you are most usually purchasing a digest collection.

Halachic literature of late has been characterised by a sort of unoriginal form of simply collecting, digesting and presenting a "how-to-do" manual, which has its purposes but is still shy of what the responsa literature was intended to be.

Now, an anti-digest pronouncement has been published in the Litvak HaMevaser, signed by leading Halachic authorities of the Haredi camp including Rabbis Shteinman, Karlitz and Kanyevsky, protesting decisions based on snippets, rumours and digests:

I am not sure exactly what issue set them off.  They are especially concerned about the relaying of "what I heard" and "what was told to me" and "what i saw in a letter" but what is missing is perhaps the question or answer was misunderstood by the third (to fifth) party or that a question was not asked properly.

^

Halachic Humor

Found at MailJewish:-

Has anyone come across or devised any methods for reducing the amount of talking in Shul that have actually worked?

One technique that works briefly, on a limited scale in a small shul, is to separate chronic talkers by giving them properly spaced aliyot (e.g., shelishi and chamishi). I call them "disciplinary aliyot".

And in line with the mechitza thread, a friend who is a gabbai told me that the best way would be to require men to sit with their wives.

^

The Halacha Adapts to Media Needs

Captured on film, Arabs igniting fires near Yitzher:




The people encircled in orange are not Jews.

As suggested by Chanie Luz, the inderdict response security team of Yitzhar brought along, this time, a camera and caught the fires being set by Arabs.  It was sanctioned by Rabbi Dudi Dudkevitch and in Hebrew on him.

More info.

Chanie on Facebook.

----------------

Here is a translated section of Chanie's article:

The media aligns with the image

Again, B'tselem is the big story: The Walla site distributed only the Arab version story all day Saturday. On Sunday, major news sites like Channel 2 News distributed the edited film of B'tselem without any statement or question. Maariv chose to print on Monday, a day and a half after the event itself, a headline announcing that "the settlers fired on Palestinians - Israeli soldiers watched from the side."
  One of them saw fit to describe the fires around, or highlight what you see clearly in photographs: the pictures...Instead of asking why the soldiers did not stop the stone throwing directed at civilians of Yitzhar - the headlines were crying out that the IDF did not stop firing on "Palestinians".  All except channel 10, where the reporter Roy Sharon talks about fires, no one else was trying to describe the full story of what happened in Yitzhar.
Placing a clip on as serious an outlet as Channel 2, without any context, and playing the other side's story - puts into question the journalistic professionalism of news editors at the site.

Long-term monitoring of the media reveals apparently a special 'affinity' reserved for Yizhar: This community is one that is perfectly legitimate to hate. The Army Radio announcer was allowed to say, baldly, it was a better a soldier had shot the residents.
...Israeli newspapers need have to check their own approach to human rights of residents of Yizhar and especially their basic right to life.  
The camera is a weapon

But the additional conclusion that perhaps more cardinal directed inward, toward the Rabbis: Jewish law ruling regarding photography on Saturday must take into account that the strength of the weapon clips surpasses all other damages: using tendentious and edited videos - makes it easy to incite against Jews, against Israel and against Israeli soldiers. The result is anti-Semitism around the world, including boycotts and economic persecution and murder stemming from this the hatred of Israel.  With the visual incitement, the IDF has become a defensive army, where soldiers must absorb spitting, cursing, stones and violence without responding. Too many soldiers were killed due to unreasonable commands that take into account the damage to the image in the media.
With media propaganda, many Jews have legal scars, and abandoned Jewish settlers are bled. What is necessary is that Rabbis need give an the opinion that professional photography be permited on the Shabbat just as defensive weapons are allowed on the Shabbaty. Not only the camera of security officers, but by specially trained photographers, for example, the Tazpit organization.

If for the business of straw and hay the Sabbath may be desecrated, I think the blood libels post - modern - the more so.

I do not pretend to rule, for their are greater scholars than I, but in matters of communication I do presume to say that I understand much.

I call on rabbis to contemplate and discuss and make a sound brave decision, and prevent the damage the media and the image cause.

Channie and I:

^

A New Threat to Gefilte Fish (Oiy Vey)

Reported:

Rabbi Ovadia Yosef, in his 51st volume of Responsa, and deals with the Ashkenazi tradition of eating gefilte fish on the Shabbat.

He explains that

...one of the reasons behind the invention of the gefilte fish was a stiffening of the "borer" law (one of the 39 labors prohibited on Shabbat involving the separation of two or more food items that are mixed together [actually separating “Pesolet” (refuse, or undesirable substance) from “Ochel” (food)]). The preparation of gefilte fish involves finely mincing carp, including its fine bones. "The cheap and abundant carp has small spiky bones and many Ashkenazi arbiters found the gefilte fish cakes to be a simple solution" to the "borer" prohibition of removing the small bones...

The Rabbi's solutution? Simple - cancell out the problem:

In the book, the rabbi permits the removal of the carp's small bones on Shabbat, explaining that this does not institute a violation of the "borer" law. This means that Shabbat may be stripped of its weekly dose of gefilte fish, in favor of whole fish.

Actually, we Ashkenazim love gefilte fish so there is no way we're giving it up. Not for all the Sefaradi pilpul in the world.

^

My Letter That Wasn't Published in AZURE

The letter:

In their "Halacha's moment of truth" (AZURE, 43 ), Evelyn Gordon and Hadassah Levy address the theme of adapting "the Halacha to the requirements of revived Jewish sovereignty" which, in their words, is "...the process of transforming Judaism back into a religion focused on the needs of sovereignty." They assert that this "has barely begun" and that but a "few pioneering rabbis and scholars" are involved at the contemporary moment. Actually, at the very beginning of the state's establishment, these issues were on the agenda and those early efforts should be credited.

The April 1949, the Yavneh Religious Academic Journal published several articles dealing with issues of Constitution and Legislation themes including "The State and Its Constitution", "The Law in Israel" and "Courts and Procedure" spanning over 150 pages. Between 1952-1955, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg published his three volume "Hilchot Medinah" with 700 pages (and see this). In 1952, Rabbi Dr. Shimon Federbusch's "Mishpat HaM'lucha B'Yisrael" appeared, a second edition came out in 1973. Finally, in 1996, the articles of Rabbi Shlomo Goren dealing with the state of Israel and matters of Halacha that appeared over the past five decades in various journals were published in a collected "Torat HaMedinah", an almost 500 page tome (see also here).

The material in these books dealt with all the topics Gordon and Levy enumerate as essential for a modern state based on principles of the Halacha. The writings of Rabbi Chaim Hirschensohn of the first two decades of the 20th century, first published in his 1929 Malki BaKodesh, should also be noted. He castigated what he perceived as the apprehensive reluctance of Rabbis to deal with the urgent questions of the relevancy of Halacha to modern life and its demands politically, economicaly and scientificallyy.

I would suggest that the beginnings of the process were there for almost 60 years but what was missing was the true vision and daring in the Rabbinical establishment. The groundbreaking interpretations required to meet the challenges of the times were available and there for all to read. But human frailties and lack of intellectual courage were at fault.

What's On Your Head?

Is it sha'atnez*?

In a baseball cap?

Read on.

(k/t=JerusalemKosherNews)

___________

*

I write sha'atnez since the Hebrew is שַׁעַטְנֵז .

^

On Gifts From Non-Jews

In the Torah weekly portion sheet, "Me'At Min Ha'Or", Issue 586, Parshat Terumah, which is headed by Rabbis Chanan Porat, Menachem Felix and Eliezer Melamed, I found this decisory discussion on the question of accepting a gift for a synagogue from a non-Jew penned by Rabbi Benayhu Bruner (some of his other writings, in Hebrew, here), head of the Tzefat hesder Yeshiva and a Tzohar Rabbi in charge of their marriage project (who may have been involved in a police investigation five years ago but as far as I know, no charges were brought).  Since it has ramifications for a central point of contention, I think it deserves a summarized translation (the full Hebrew text is at the end of this post in Word).

First, the scanned article:

At this page at the Jewish Israel site, you can find material opposing the acceptance of "Christian Funding and Assistance".  However, Rabbi Bruner makes it clear that the Halacha is not that clear-cut.

The Talmud, Tractate Baba Batra 10b, does not permit charity from the non-Jew:

Rabban Johanan b. Zakkai said to his disciples: My sons, what is the meaning of the verse, Righteousness exalteth a nation, but the kindness of the peoples is sin?11 R. Eliezer answered and said: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation:' this refers to Israel of whom it is written, Who is like thy people Israel one nation in the earth?12 But 'the kindness of the peoples is sin': all the charity and kindness done by the heathen is counted to them as sin, because they only do it to magnify themselves, as it says, That they may offer sacrifices of sweet savour unto the God of heaven, and pray for the life of the king and of his sons.13 But is not an act of this kind charity in the full sense of the word, seeing that it has been taught: 'If a man says, — I give this sela for charity in order that my sons may live and that I may be found worthy of the future world, he may all the same be a righteous man in the full sense of the word'? — There is no contradiction; in the one case we speak of an Israelite, in the other of a heathen.14

11.   Prov. XIV, 34.

12.   II Sam. VII, 23.
13.   Ezra VI, 10. Artaxerxes wrote thus to the Governor of Jerusalem when he ordered him to give Ezra all that he required.
14.   Because the Israelite, whatever he may say, really gives the charity for its own sake.

It then continues there:

...R. Eliezer the Modiite18 says: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation': this refers to Israel of whom it is written, Who is like thy people Israel, one nation in the earth. 'The kindness of the peoples is sin': all the charity and kindness of the heathen is counted to them as sin, since they do it only to reproach us, as it says, The Lord hath brought it and done according as he spake, because ye have sinned against the Lord and have not obeyed his voice, therefore this thing is come upon you.19 R. Nehuniah b. ha-Kanah answered saying: 'Righteousness exalteth a nation, and there is kindness for Israel and a sin-offering for the peoples.' Said R. Johanan b. Zakkai to his disciples: 'The answer of R. Nehuniah b. ha-Kanah is superior to my answer and to yours, because he assigns charity and kindness to Israel and sin to the heathen.' This seems to show that he also gave an answer; what was it? — As it has been taught: R. Johanan b. Zakkai said to them: Just as the sin-offering makes atonement for Israel, so charity makes atonement for the heathen.20

Ifra Hormiz21 the mother of King Shapur sent four hundred dinarim to R. Ammi,22 a but he would not accept them. She23 then sent them to Raba, and he accepted them, in order not to offend24 the Government. When R. Ammi heard, he was indignant and said: Does he not hold with the verse, When the boughs thereof are withered they shall be broken off, the women shall come and set them on fire?25 Raba [defended himself] on the ground that he wished not to offend the Government. Was not R. Ammi also anxious not to offend the Government? — [He was angry] because he ought to have distributed the money to the non-Jewish poor. But Raba did distribute it to the non-Jewish poor? — The reason R. Ammi was indignant was that he had not been fully informed.1

18.   From Modim, near Jerusalem, the ancient home of the Maccabean family.

19.   Jer. XL, 3. Spoken by Nebuzaradan to Jeremiah.
20.   And we translate the verse: Righteousness exalteth a nation (Israel), and the kindness of peoples is a sin — offering for them.
21.   V. supra 8a.
22.   [R. Ammi at Caesarea (Hyman op cit. p. 222)].
23.   [V. D.S. a.l.]
24.   Lit., 'to be at peace with'.
25.   Isa. XXVII, 11. When the heathen have received the reward of their pious deeds in this world, their power will be broken.
1.   I.e., he had not been told that Raba had distributed the money to non-Jewish poor, as was not unusual. [The alms distributed by heathens were frequently derived from robbery, hence the Rabbis' attitude towards heathen charity; v. Buchler, Sepphoris, p. 44.]

And yet, in another Talmud Tractate, Arachin 6a, the gift of a candlelabrum from a non-Jew is accepted for use in a synagogue.

One [Baraitha] taught: If an idol-worshipper offers a freewill- gift towards Temple repairs ‘one accepts it from him, whilst another [Baraitha] taught: One does not accept it from him. Said R. Ela in the name of R. Johanan: This is no difficulty: The first applies to the beginning,1 the latter to the end.2 For R. Assi said in the name of R. Johanan: In the beginning one should not accept from them even salt or water, whereas at the end one may not accept a thing that can be easily identified,3 but something that cannot easily be identified one may accept. What is a ‘thing that can be easily identified’? — R. Joseph said: Like the cubit [of metal] keeping off the raven.4  R. Joseph raised an objection: And a letter unto Asaph the keeper of the king's park [that he may give me timber to make beams, etc.]?5 — Abaye said: It is different with the government because it will not retract. For Samuel has said: If the government said, I will uproot a mountain, it will uproot the mountain and not retract!

1.   At the beginning of the building the intention of the idol-worshippers may not be a good one, their gift being made to give them entry into the building programmed which they plan to interfere with or delay. But according to the law they may be accepted for Temple repairs, hence the ruling of R. Judah.
2.   When the building is completed.
3.   Which might cause the heathen to point Boastfully to their contribution, or to its importance for the Temple.
4.   An arrangement of iron points on the roof of the Temple designed to keep ravens away. V. M.K. 9a.
5.   Neh. II, 8. From this passage it is evident that gifts were accepted from (Cyrus) an idolator, and that happened at the beginning of the building.

 
Rabbi Bruner then notes that the Rama (at Yoreh Dei'ah 254) may be accepted from non-Jews if in the form of a donation to a synagogue but not simple charity.  However, there are gifts that cannot be accepted and those include, as the Rambam notes (Shekalim 4:8), waterworks, walls and towers as well as supplies in Jerusalem that must come from Jewish charity donated to the

אַמַּת הַמַּיִם שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְחוֹמַת יְרוּשָׁלַיִם, וְכָל מִגְדְּלוֹתֶיהָ, וְכָל צָרְכֵּי הָעִיר--בָּאִין מִשְּׁיַרֵי הַלִּשְׁכָּה. וְגוֹי שֶׁהִתְנַדַּב מָעוֹת לַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלּוּ, אוֹ שֶׁהִתְנַדַּב לַעֲשׂוֹת עִמָּהֶם בְּחִנָּם--אֵין מְקַבְּלִין מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאַפִלּוּ גֵּר תּוֹשָׁב: שֶׁנֶּאֱמָר "לֹא-לָכֶם וָלָנוּ, לִבְנוֹת בַּיִת לֵאלֹהֵינוּ" (עזרא ד,ג), וְנֶאֱמָר "וְלָכֶם, אֵין-חֵלֶק וּצְדָקָה וְזִכָּרוֹן--בִּירוּשָׁלִָם" (נחמיה ב,כ).

Bruner includes other Rabbinic decisors that permit accepting such a gift to a synagogue but not in Jerusalem.  He notes that the S'dei Chemed permits furniture items such as seats, etc. but not the actual construction of the building.

As for inscribing the name of the donor regarding a non-Jew, he quotes Rav Ovadiah Yosef as not permitting it in a separate notation on the object but if the name is included in a general list of contributors, thgen it is permitted.

As I noted above, this is an issue hotly debated but obviously, there are differences of opinion.



___________________
Here is the Hebrew text in Word:

לאור המשפט העברי / הרב בניהו ברונר

האם מותר לקבל תרומה מנכרי עבור בית כנסת ובתמורה לחקוק את שמו?

"דַּבֵּר אֶל בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְיִקְחוּ לִי תְּרוּמָה" (שמות

בתלמוד (ב"ב י' ע"ב) נפסק שאין מקבלים צדקה מגויים על מנת שלא להרבות את זכויותיהם (במקרים שיש חשש איבה מותר לקבל ולחלק לעניים גויים ולעתים הקלו גם לישראלים), מאידך גיסא במקום אחר (ערכין ו ע"א) מסופר על נכרי שתרם מנורה לבית הכנסת וקיבלו ממנו, עונים תוספות: תרומה לבית הכנסת נחשבת כקרבן, בבית המקדש היו מקבלים קרבנות עולה מגויים ולכן מותר לקבל תרומות לבית הכנסת.

וכך פסק הרמ"א (יו"ד רנ"ד): "דדוקא כשהעכו"ם נותן מעות לצדקה אין מקבלים ממנו, אבל אם מתנדב דבר לבהכ"נ מקבלים ממנו, אבל לא מן המומר". מיהודי מומר לא מקבלים קרבנות בבית המקדש ולכן לא מקבלים ממנו תרומה לבית הכנסת, גוי דינו שונה.

ה"שדי חמד" מביא דעות אחרונים שמותר לקבל מנכרי תרומות רק לרהיטי בית הכנסת ולא לבניין, שהרי הרמב"ם (שקלים ד' ח') פסק: "גוי שהתנדב מעות לדברים האלו או שהתנדב לעשות עמהם בחנם אין מקבלין ממנו ואפילו גר תושב, שנאמר (עזרא ד'): לא לכם ולנו לבנות בית לאלהינו ונאמר (נחמיה ב'): ולכם אין חלק וצדקה וזכרון בירושלם", ובית כנסת דינו כבית המקדש, כנראה שבבית הכנסת האיסור הוא מדרבנן.

בפירוש רש"י (ערכין ו ע"א) נראה שמותר לקבל תרומה מנכרי לבנין בית הכנסת, וכך פוסק החת"ם סופר (יו"ד רכ"ה) שבית כנסת דינו שונה מבית המקדש. בשו"ת ציץ אליעזר (י"ח ס"ו) פסק שמותר לקבל מנכרים תרומות אפילו לבניין בית כנסת בכל ערי הארץ חוץ מירושלים, כיוון שבירושלים לא מקבלים תרומות מגויים אפילו לבניין החומה או חפירת אמת המים (רמב"ם מתנות עניים ח' ח'), ירושלים צריכה להיבנות מכספי עם ישראל בלבד.

הלכה למעשה אפשר לקבל מנכרי תרומה לבניין בית כנסת. בירושלים ראוי להימנע.

לגבי כתיבת שם התורם פוסק הרמ"א (יו"ד רמ"ט י"ג): "מי שמקדיש דבר לצדקה, מותר לו שיכתוב שמו עליו שיהא לו לזכרון, וראוי לעשות כן", כל זה ביהודי, לגבי נכרי פוסק הרב עובדיה יוסף שליט"א (יבי"א ז' או"ח כ"ב) שלא לכתוב את שמו על התרומה, אולם אם שמו מופיע בין רשימות התורמים ולא בפני עצמו אפשר להתיר (שו"ת בצל החכמה ג' מ"א).

^

Jews Discover: Not Virgin

Found on the Internet:

A 100% Virgin Wool men’s Milano Galleria (Italy) suit was tested and linen was discovered in the belt loop reinforcements. The Lakewood Shatnez Laboratory uncovered this incidence of shaatnez (*).

This suit was sold in Lakewood at a blowout sale. Only one Milano Galleria suit from this sale was found containing linen. No other laboratories in the East reported this shatnez finding.

Emergency Recall: All the pants from Milano Galleria suits should be rechecked by a professional Shatnez Laboratory.

For questions on shatnez to Rabbi Eliyahu Neiman,
email: jerusalemshatneznews@live.com.

_______________________

(*)

What Sha'atnez is:

The Torah forbids us to cover ourselves with any type of garment or fabric that contains both wool and linen. This would include a fabric, which is woven with both wool and linen or a garment, which is made of different materials and contain in them wool and linen that are permanently connected, (i.e. sewn or pasted). We are forbidden to wear such a mixture.

When we speak of wool, we are only referring to wool obtained from sheep or lambs. Other materials, such as camel's hair, mohair, angora, cashmere or alpaca wool, present no shatnez problems. Similarly, linen refers only to fibers derived from the flax plant, whereas other bast fibers, such as ramie, hemp or jute, may be combined with wool.

The Torah teaches us about the Mitzvah (commandment) of shatnez in two pusukim (verses) in the torah.

"Do not wear Shatnez - wool and linen together" (Deut. 22:11)

"A Shatnez garment should not cover you" (Lev. 19:19)

These two verses prohibit a Jew from wearing and garment which contains shatnez or covering oneself with such a garment.

Shatnez is an acronym described by the sages for combed, spun and woven. This means that if any of these processes done with wool and linen together the garment would be prohibited according to the Torah. In addition the Sages decreed that any lasting combination of wool and linen be considered Shatnez.

Wrong Number

UPI reports:

A religious ruling permits ultra-orthodox Jews [who are workers at Israel's Magen David Adom emergency services] to operate their mobile phones on the Sabbath and religious holidays with their teeth...Recently, the agency began replacing workers' paging systems with modern mobile phones equipped with GPS technology that locates workers and volunteers closest to the scene of an accident, shortening the response time, the report said...a specially designed case...prevents phones from being shut down accidentally. To confirm response to dispatch, workers are permitted to hold a small metal pin between their teeth and press the necessary buttons on the phones, the Web site said...

In my humble opinion, as I have myself experienced - having been a volunteer at Shaare Zedek Hospital which is administered according to Halacha - in life-threatening situations, one uses all necessary medical aid and medical support in a regular fashion.

Out of the Aisles

According to this newspaper article in today's Maariv, back page



Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv has instructed those who block the aisles in airplanes in order to congregate for communal prayer - in a minyan -, even if but one passenger, that they should not gather in such a bothersome way.

The psak, the Halachic decision, appears in a new book authored by Rav Ben-Tzion Kook, entitled פניני הלכה, משולחנו של מרן רבנו הגאון רבי יוסף שלום אלישיב, seen here:




Rav Gil Student sent me his previous post on the subject.

The Halacha Is Not Irrelevent to Health

Jewish Halachic law is very strict and restrictive about permitting the taking of a life, even in in cases where the patient is seemingly hopeless. Articles are here and also here.

For example:

Mike Connelly's...heart stopped in late January and he lay in a coma for 96 hours before his family tearfully gave the OK for physicians at Tri-City Medical Center to disconnect life support.

That's when Connelly woke up...Though doctors had pronounced Connelly's case hopeless and said his brain would never recover, today he is showing steady progress. Those same doctors say Connelly seems headed for a full recovery.

Hair-Covering? And What About the Ears?

I don't usually deal with matters of Halacha, Jewish ritual law, except, perhaps, when it pertains to 'political' issues that I deal with like the Temple Mount and the sanctity of the Land of Israel.

But, as they say, there's always an exception.

Recently, there have been a spate of postings and discussions on matters of women's modesty, tzni'ut. This includes MailJewish - a few postings are here and also here as well as here among many other entries along that thread there; and DovBear (here, for example or also here); and Hirhurim (here's one), for starters. You can go to forums like this one if the subject has, er, gripped you.

Anyway, I thought to myself if haircovering is a major discussion issue (and my wife has a chapter contribution in this book - Hide and Seek: Jewish Women and Hair Covering) - why not raise another issue of covering/uncovering.

The Shulchan Arukh, the major 16th centruy compilation of everyday law, deals with the matter of carrying on the Shabbat, which, unless certain restrictions are followed, is prohibited.

Chapter 303 deals with women walking about in the public domain with jewelry which is problematic.

For example:-

May one wear jewelry?

Background: although jewelry and ornaments are not ‘clothing’ nevertheless they serve a function and wearing them on Shabbos is not considered carrying, provided that they are worn in the regular manner. [2] Chazal however were concerned that one would remove one’s jewelry to show to a friend and carry it in a reshus harabim (a public domain) and transgress the issur of carrying. They therefore prohibited wearing most jewelry.

Most jewelry and ornaments may be worn nowadays because the Rama writes [3] that women do not remove their jewelry to show their friends and therefore the major concern is removed. The explanation being that in former times pieces of jewelry were not common and women would wear them only on Shabbos, thus they would show their trinkets to friends. As jewelry is much more common nowadays and worn all the time, this no longer applies.

[2] Based on many se’ifim in simonim 310 and 303. See also SS”K 18:12.

[3] Simon 303:18.

[4] Bi’ur Halacha simon 303:18 ד"ה כי בזה, Shulchan Aruch HaRav simon 303:23, SS”K 18:12.

If, however, we delve a bit into the sources, we can find something interesting.

Here's the original Hebrew for sub-paragraph 10 of 303:-

שג דיני תכשיטי אשה

לא תצא בנזמי האף שמא תשלפם להראותם אבל יוצאת בנזמי האוזן מפני שאזניה מכוסות בקישוריה וטורח הוא לה לגלותן לשלוף מהן הנזמים להראותן ובמקומות שנוהגין לגלות האזנים אסורה לצאת גם בנזמי האוזן

My translation:-

A woman shall not go out [into the public domain] with nose rings for perhaps she may undo them to show them off; but to go out with earings [is permissable] because her ears are covered [my emphasis] with her ornaments and it would be too much of a bother to uncover them in order to slip them off for display; and in places where the ears [are in any case] uncovered, it would be then prohibited to walk about with earings.

As I am not a Rabbi, well, a diplomaed one, please, if you have any questions, consult your local Orthodox Rabbi but two observations:-

a) Jewish women had nose rings.

b) Jewish women seemingly had to cover not only their hair but their ears as well (only on Shabbat?)

Interesting.

Jewish Halachic Law in the NYT

Halacha (and Israel) in a NYT story on hostage-taking and prisoner-relase:-

...“We don’t negotiate with terrorists,” Sean McCormack, a State Department spokesman told reporters on Thursday. “We don’t advise others to do so as well.”

He was denouncing the swap Italy made last week with the Taliban: five Taliban prisoners held in Afghan jails for an Italian reporter kidnapped in southern Afghanistan. The trade, officials around the globe warned, was wrong all around: It rewarded terror and encouraged more abductions.

...The reason is that kidnapping, as old as war itself, entangles the personal and the political, with real harm possible for hostage and politician alike...“Kidnappings are more difficult for governments to deal with than murders,” said Brian Michael Jenkins, an expert on kidnappings and political violence at the RAND Corporation. “Because human life hangs in the balance, and because it appears that the government or the company or whoever is the target of the demands can do something. Of course, in the process the culpability shifts.”

...But Israel, the country most often forced to confront hostage situations, has also swapped prisoners regularly — and has declared a willingness to do so now to free Cpl. Gilad Shalit, captured in Gaza last summer.

It is worth noting that Jewish religious law recognizes the particular difficulties of hostage taking: It does not forbid paying ransom, but only one that exceeds the value of the transaction. And so in cases like that of Corporal Shalit, leading rabbis issue opinions about the worth of various possible exchanges.

But one of the most renowned cases in Jewish history showed how difficult such an evaluation really is: the 13th-century Rabbi Meir of Rothenburg was taken hostage by Rudolph I, the first German king of the Hapsburg dynasty. A huge sum reputedly was raised for his ransom, but Rabbi Meir refused to allow the transaction, saying it would only encourage other kidnappings of rabbis. He died in jail.

Similarly, some Israelis argue that one of the largest prisoner swaps — in 1985 in which three Israelis captured in Lebanon were traded for 1,150 people — emboldened Palestinians to revolt two years later in the first intifada [*]. Whatever the precedents, many experts say the actual deals are negotiated under enormous pressure and with minimal regard for what happens later. “There is no theoretical basis,” said Mark Heller, director of research at the Institute for National Security Studies in Israel. “It’s just a question of ad hoc decision-making by the government, which is a function of domestic pressure and public opposition. Even family pressure.”

“After every deal like this,” he added, “there is a kind of post facto analysis and everyone says it was a mistake and we shouldn’t do it again. And we do it again.”

[*}
This was one of Israel's biggest mistakes. Not only were those released the entire operational structure of the Intifada I, but it broke down every government's ability to withstand the pressures in the future and so we go down and down.