The Intrinsic Sanctity of the Land of Israel ... Shmittah etc..

Rabbi Yaakov David Willowski (1845-1913) of Safed, known as the 'Ridbaz,' was one of the most vociferous opponents to the hetter mechirah - the temporary sale of land in Israel to a non-Jew in order to avoid the restrictions of working the land during the Sabbatical year. 

More interesting than his Halachic objections to the sale, however, is the philosophical argument that the rabbi of Safed raised.

The stated purpose of the hetter, the Ridbaz wrote, is to uphold the mitzvah of Yishuv Ha'aretz, settling the Land, by allowing the fledgling agricultural settlements in the Land of Israel to grow and prosper. But if the legal sale is indeed effective, then the Land would lose its sanctity and the special agricultural mitzvot - tithes, the Sabbatical year, and so on - would no longer apply. And if the Land is not holy, there is no longer a mitzvah to settle the Land. Thus the hetter in effect undermines the very goal it was designed to support!

To paraphrase the Ridbaz: the whole purpose of our return to Eretz Yisrael is to fulfill its special mitzvot and experience its unique sanctity. If we use loopholes and legal fictions to avoid these mitzvot, we may as well be living in Warsaw or New York!

Rav Kook and the Hetter

Despite common belief, Rav Kook was not in fact the author of the hetter mechirah. 

This legal mechanism was first designed for the Sabbatical year of 1889. 

At that time, Jewish farmers in Eretz Yisrael, whose livelihood depended upon the export of wine and citrus fruits, turned to the leading Halachic authorities in Europe to find a way to avoid the ruin of the fragile industry they were struggling to develop. Were they to let the land lie fallow, the young orchards would suffer greatly, and the export business they had built up would be lost. They also feared that land left fallow could be lost to squatters and thieves. This was particularly problematic due to Ottoman Empire land laws, which allowed ownership of uncultivated land to be challenged by squatters

In response to this difficult situation, three prominent rabbis met in Vilna and devised the hetter mechirah, based on similar legal sales to avoid the prohibitions involved with bechorot (firstborn animals) and chametz on Passover. The hetter was approved by famed Halachic authority Rabbi Yitzchak Elchanan Spector. However, many prominent rabbis opposed it, including some of the greatest authorities of the time - and the controversy over the hetter mechirah was born.

As rabbi of the town of Jaffa and its surrounding communities, Rav Kook needed to take a position regarding the hetter. While still in Europe, he had discussed the issue with his father-in-law, and they both decided against supporting it.

But after coming to Eretz Yisrael and seeing first-hand the great need for the hetter, Rav Kook changed his mind and became a staunch supporter of the leniency. Prior to the Sabbatical year of 1910, he penned a Halachic treatise in defense of the hetter mechirah, entitled Shabbat Ha'aretz.

The Sanctity of the Land

In his remarks defending the hetter, Rav Kook responded to the Ridbaz's objection that the hetter undermines its own stated goal - supporting the settlement of the Land of Israel - because selling the Land to non-Jews annuls its sanctity and circumvents its special mitzvot.

This argument, Rav Kook explained, is based on the false premise that the special holiness of Eretz Yisrael is limited to mitzvot ha-teluyot ba'aretz, those mitzvot that only apply in the Land. According to this view, once these special mitzvot are no longer binding, there is no longer any holiness to the Land and no mitzvah to settle it.

But this is not the true outlook of the Torah. Instead, we should compare the mitzvah of settling the Land of Israel to the mitzvah of studying Torah. While it is true that Torah study enables one to learn how to properly discharge all mitzvot, one cannot say that the value of Torah study is only as a preparation to fulfilling mitzvot. In fact, there is an intrinsic holiness in the act of studying Torah. Even when studying subjects which have no current practical application, this study is nonetheless invaluable. As the Sages taught: One who studies the laws of the Chatat offering is considered as if he offered a Chatat(Menachot 110a).

The holiness of the Land of Israel is independent of those mitzvot that may be fulfilled while living there. Just the opposite: the primary holiness of the Land is reflected in the mitzvah to settle it, and the obligation of mitzvot ha-teluyot ba'aretz is an expression of this special holiness. As the Sages taught, merely living in Eretz Yisrael is equal to all the mitzvot in the Torah - and this 'equation' includes those mitzvot that only apply in the Land.

Equal to all the Mitzvot

This statement about the overriding value of living in the Land appears in the Sifri (sec. 80) in the context of the following story:

"Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua and Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar set out to travel to Nitzivim [in Babylonia] in order to study Torah from Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira. But when they arrived in Sidon, they remembered the Land of Israel. They lifted their eyes, and their tears flowed. They rent their garments and quoted the verse: "You will expel them and dwell in their land" (Deut. 12:29). Then they returned home and declared: Dwelling in the Land of Israel is equivalent to all of the mitzvot of the Torah."

These scholars had pure motives for leaving Eretz Yisrael. They sought to learn Torah from one of the leading sages of the generation. Yet in the end, they decided that the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land takes precedence. They placed greater value on living in Eretz Yisrael, even at a time when the country suffered from foreign rule and economic hardship. The mitzvah of living in the Land was still in force, even though the Sages of that time found legal loopholes - similar to the hetter mechirah - to lighten the financial burden of certain mitzvot (such as Hillel's pruzbul, and avoiding tithes by bringing produce into the house by way of the courtyard or the roof (see Berachot 35b)).

Why did these scholars quote this particular verse, "You will expel them and dwell in their land"? Apparently, they noted that the word "their" is extraneous; it could have just read "and dwell in the land." They deduced from here that even when the Land of Israel has not been fully released from the control of foreign nations - even when it was still considered "their land," the land of the Canaanite nations, and many of the land-dependent mitzvot were not yet incumbent - we are nonetheless obligated to dwell in the Land.

This lesson was also valid during the time of Rabbi Elazar ben Shamua and Rabbi Yochanan HaSandlar. Even after the destruction of the Temple, even in a time of foreign rule, the mitzvah of dwelling in the Land is still equal to all the mitzvot.

The author of Kaftor VaFerach (Rabbi Ishtori HaParchi, 1280-1355) similarly wrote that the sanctity of the Land of Israel is independent of the mitzvot ha-teluyot ba'aretz. 

His proof: 

why did Jacob, Joseph, and Moses all seek to be buried in the Land when it had not yet been conquered and sanctified?

In summary, Rav Kook concluded, it is not only possible to be lenient in our days, it is proper to do so, in order to encourage settlement of the Land. Furthermore, the hetter does not cancel all aspects of the Sabbatical year. It only permits those types of agricultural labor that are rabbinically prohibited. Thus the Sabbatical year is not completely uprooted. This hetter, Rav Kook explained, is similar to the permission - and obligation - to desecrate the Sabbath in life-threatening situations. As the Sages wrote: The Torah teaches that we should desecrate a single Sabbath for one whose life is in danger, so that he will be able to keep many future Sabbaths(Yoma 85b). Similarly, by permitting certain agricultural work now, we will enable the full observance of the Sabbatical year in the future.

Novominsker Rebbe Issues Direct Plea to President Obama regarding Iran

I got to give credit where credit is due! I have been hammering Agudah for not addressing issues that concern Israel's security, so now the Noveminsker addressed it..Kudos!

“Our tefillos, of course, are directed to Avinu shebashamayim, but I also feel compelled to address the leader of this great country.”

A deafening silence overtook the cavernous grand ballroom of the Hilton New York, as Rabbi Yaakov Perlow, the Novominsker Rebbe shlit”a, Rosh Agudas Yisroel of America, spoke these words during the organization’s 93rd annual dinner on Sunday evening.

The subject that prompted the Rebbe to address his words directly to President Obama was the impending “deal” with Iran regarding the rogue nation’s nuclear development. The Rebbe expressed deep concern about the threat an invigorated Iran poses toward Israel.

The Rebbe passionately invoked the 70th anniversary of the culmination of the Holocaust when discussing Iran’s “open declaration of genocide.” He bluntly stated that the diplomatic agreements currently being contemplated between the United States and Iran could well enable the radical regime to attain nuclear weapons “one way or another.”

“Mr. President, rise to the challenge of history,” the Rebbe implored, “and preserve life and freedom for a people who have been the whipping boys of history.”

PA Towns Surrounded by Jews Enjoy 0% Unemployment

Propaganda notwithstanding, it turns out that being surrounded by 'settlers' isn't all that 'suffocating.'

View from the hills of Samaria

Three Palestinian Arab towns in western Samaria that are surrounded by Jewish communities and seemingly “cut off” from the rest of the the Palestinian Authority (PA) are actually doing quite well for themselves, according to a report by the PA-based Safa news agency cited by blogger Elder of Zion.

The towns – Mas-ha, Qarawat Bani Hassan and Biddya, are bordered by Elkana on the west and Barkan on the east, and as the blogger notes, they form “islands of Arab brown among a sea of Jewish blue areas,” in amap provided by the pro-Palestinian B'tselem.

While PA propaganda portrays Jewish settlements as "strangling" Arab towns, the Safa article, in Arabic, actually says that the towns have an amazing zero percent unemployment rate.

The towns' merchants used to do brisk business with Jewish customers, but the great terror war of the 2000s scared off the Jews, and forced them to look for alternative markets. The town leaders decided to re-orient their economy around manufacturing. “Now they are filled with factories making glass, furniture and other goods,” writes Elder of Zion. “This has caused their land prices to increase tenfold, from 10,000 Jordanian dinars per dunam to 100,000 dinars.”

The new factories are reportedly attracting Arabs from all over Judea and Samaria, with workers' wages comparable to those of Arab workers in Jewish communities, at NIS 4000-7000 a month.

And yet, the business leaders of Qarawat Bani Hassan complain that the PA does nothing to help them, while taxing them heavily and treating them with suspicion.

“The story of Mas-ha, Qarawat Bani Hassan and Biddya shows that it isn't settlements that are ruining the economy under PA rule. It is PA rule itself, where jobs are used as political favors and corruption is the norm, where innovation is punished and laziness rewarded,” writes the veteran pro-Israel blogger. 

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked: Why is the Left Afraid of her?

Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked may be Israeli democracy's last hope of overthrowing an elitist clique which enjoys all the trappings of a Middle East dictatorship - and that's precisely why the Left are so determined to stop her.

From crude, sexist comments to outright death threats, the hysterical reaction to the appointment of Jewish Home MK Ayelet Shaked as Justice Minister has been shocking even by the low standards of the far-left.

Now, the incitement has reached such levels that Shaked will be assigned a personal security detail - a rare occurrence in Israel, where MKs and ministers can regularly be seen walking in public safely without bodyguards.

Why?

She is, we are informed, a "danger to democracy" - for wanting to curb the powers of an unelected clique which currently has the ability to veto any Knesset legislation it so chooses: the Supreme Court.

Those votes you cast last March? 

Those legislators acting on your behalf? 

They are just putty in the hands of 15 people of the same political hue (guess which one), who "know better" - and who are by no means shy of "correcting" the State of Israel's democratic decisions (read: decisions not in-line with their own ideological vision), should they feel the need. That, we are told by Shaked's ferocious critics, is the true face of democracy. And you'd better believe it!

For those unaware of just how undemocratic the Supreme Court is as an institution, look no further than the body which selects its judges, the Judicial Selection Committee. 

The Committee is comprised of nine members. Of those, two are government ministers (including the Justice Minister and one other), two are MKs (one each from the coalition and opposition), and another two are members of the Israeli Bar Association. 

So far, so balanced.

But the remaining three are sitting members of the Supreme Court - granting them an effective veto over any candidate. It's also worth noting that according to convention the committee members selected from the Israeli Bar Association traditionally come from the Association's two largest - and leftist-dominated - factions.

Once selected, the only way to remove a Supreme Court Justice (other than them retiring) is for the Court of Discipline - headed by judges handpicked by the Supreme Court President - to disqualify them. 

A Justice can only be considered for disqualification if both the Justice Minister and Supreme Court President are in agreement, and after a majority vote by seven of the nine Committee Members.

Given that nearly all Justice Ministers have come from the political Left - with the remainder coming from the more "establishment" elements of the Likud party (Netanyahu's favorite was rumored to have been the distinctly anti-reform Likud MK Benny Begin) - the Supreme Court Justices have had a very sweet deal indeed: 

on the one hand, almost unlimited power to fashion the country in their image; and on the other, in the tradition of all Middle Eastern dictators, a phony legitimacy provided by an elaborate pretense of democracy in the shape of an opaque and cynically-stacked selection process.

To be sure, the issue is one of balance and independent 

oversight, and not any fundamental problem in having a robust judiciary (an important aspect of any functioning democracy). To that end, Shaked's ultimate goal should not be to render it impotent but rather to knock it down several pegs and pave the way for a desperately-needed reform in both its composition and the limits to its power (of which there are currently none whatsoever). 

Were the Supreme Court to be more balanced in its composition, it would not have gained the degree of resentment it has.

Instead, the Court acts as the Left's insurance plan; even if they lose the Knesset, the "Bagatz" can always make sure the country's trajectory doesn't swing too far away from their vision to prevent them from pulling it back eventually.

The Right, on the other hand, has no such safety net.

This clear agenda is reflected in even a brief glance at the instances in which the court has intervened to torpedo Knesset and government legislation - as well as when it has decided not to.

Deporting illegal immigrants? 

That goes against Israel's democratic fiber, so shoot it down they will - repeatedly!

Deporting Jews from Gaza? 

Preventing the gross miscarriage of justice - which undermines their own courts - of releasing convicted terrorist murderers just for a place at the table with the Palestinian Authority? Suddenly, it is "inappropriate" for the courts to intervene "in matters of government policy."

And of course, it doesn't help that the Basic Laws (Israel's amorphous and poorly-defined version of a constitution) which define the Supreme Court's powers are subject to interpretation by none other than... the Supreme Court.

Take for example the way in which the Courts have alternatively implemented and ignored the "Basic Law: The Knesset" as it suits them, to take de-facto control over who we can or cannot vote for (Ayatollah Khamenei could learn a thing or two).

In 1988, the Court accepted a petition to ban right-wing MK Rabbi Meir Kahane and his Kach party from running for election, based on an amendment made three years earlier to the Basic Law. According to that amendment, a candidate can be disqualified if he/she advocates for the "negation of the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state; incitement to racism; [or] support of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel."

Rabbi Kahane's anti-Arab rhetoric was deemed to fall under that second category, and hence the Court upheld his disqualification.

Fast-forward to February 2015 and, for the umpteenth time, pro-Hamas MK Hanin Zoabi's ban on running was overturned by the Supreme Court - despite her being open about her negation of Israel as a Jewish state, as well as her clear and open support, again and again, "of armed struggle, by a hostile state or a terrorist organization, against the State of Israel."

Zoabi yes, Kahane no. 

The Court has spoken - and it needn't justify its double-standard to us mere mortals. No wonder Zoabi was laughing so hard.

Former Supreme Court President Judge Aharon Barak once compared his court to the sages of the Talmud (minus the commitment to halakha, of course) - fashioning the very shape of the Jewish people with a near-divine mandate. That is genuinely how they view themselves.

It should come as no surprise, therefore, that the appointment, for the first time, of a Justice Minister who has clearly voiced her intention to curb some of the Court's unlimited power, should be the subject of such ferocious hatred from the very political corner that Court has been doggedly advocating for and defending since the State's founding.

Even without the vulgar comments and threats to her life, Ayelet Shaked will face a tough time achieving the reforms she seeks to implement(which still require clear and comprehensive outlining to allow for public scrutiny).

Jewish Home leader Naftali Bennett achieved a major coup in netting both the Justice Ministry and the Constitution, Law and Justice Committee, but already there are moves to defang Shaked - for example by removing her from the Judicial Selection Committee in favor of a more pro-establishment Likud MK.

However, should she succeed against the odds, it will be nothing less than a revolution. By breaking the suffocating stranglehold of an unelected, leftist clique over Israeli democracy, she can pave the way for the Supreme Court's rehabilitation as a more balanced institution which actually represents the citizens of Israel.

Far from being a "threat to Israeli democracy," as the demagogues tell us, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked may well be its last hope.

Ari Soffer

The writer is the Managing Editor of Arutz Sheva/Israel NationalNews. He was born in London, UK, and prior to his Aliyah to Israel in 2013 was active in a variety of pro-Israel and anti-extremism organizations. Today, he lives in the ancient Jewish town of Shiloh in Samaria, Israel.

The Kerry Guarantee

John Forbes Kerry is the 68th secretary of state of the United States of America. 

If you’re ever tempted to ponder American decline, or for that matter the decline of the West, you might pause to reflect that John Kerry was preceded in his august office by, among others, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, William Seward, John Hay, Elihu Root, Charles Evans Hughes, Henry Stimson, George Marshall, Dean Acheson, Henry Kissinger, and George Shultz.

But leave aside such melancholy thoughts of the glories of the past. Let’s focus instead on the (admittedly grim) present. Let’s focus on something John Kerry said early last week. It is, even in light of his own sad record and by his own low standards, startlingly foolish. Here’s Kerry, in Jerusalem, attempting to reassure Israelis about Iran’s nuclear program:

I say to every Israeli that today we have the ability to stop [the Iranians] if they decided to move quickly to a bomb and I absolutely guarantee that in the future we will have the ability to know what they are doing so that we can still stop them if they decided to move to a bomb.

This Kerry guarantee is ludicrous. History shows, and every serious expert understands, that there can be no guarantee—let alone an absolute guarantee—that we will know everything the Iranian regime is doing in its efforts to acquire nuclear weapons technology. This would be the case even if Kerry were able, in the current negotiations, to secure a thoroughgoing and intrusive inspections regime, which he is not. With the inspections regime the Obama administration looks likely to settle for, we won’t be able to guarantee, we won’t even be able to have much confidence, that we’ll know what Iran is doing

To get a sense of how farcical Kerry’s “absolute guarantee” is, here’s what two of his illustrious predecessors, Kis-singer and Shultz, have to say about the prospective deal:

Negotiations that began 12 years ago as an international effort to prevent an Iranian capability to develop a nuclear arsenal are ending with an agreement that concedes this very capability, albeit short of its full capacity in the first 10 years. .  .  . Under the proposed agreement, for 10 years Iran will never be further than one year from a nuclear weapon and, after a decade, will be significantly closer. .  .  . In a large country with multiple facilities and ample experience in nuclear concealment, violations will be inherently difficult to detect. .  .  . Any report of a violation is likely to prompt debate over its significance—or even calls for new talks with Tehran to explore the issue. The experience of Iran’s work on a heavy-water reactor during the “interim agreement” period—when suspect activity was identified but played down in the interest of a positive negotiating atmosphere—is not encouraging.

Now, one could imagine a sophisticated case for a not-fully-reassuring deal, made by a more sophisticated negotiator than John Kerry: It’s not perfect, but some visibility into the program is better than none; we’ll probably pick up cheating once it’s been going on for a while; and, as Clint Eastwood put it, “If you want a guarantee, buy a toaster.” But we don’t have a serious or sophisticated negotiator. We have John Kerry. So the deal will be catastrophic. And the defense of it will be dishonest.

That’s why a group of senators fought over the last couple of weeks to strengthen the Corker-Cardin legislation—seeking to add to it standards that would make clear what an acceptable deal would be, and to create a process that would establish a fair playing field for debate and votes on the deal. The junior senators did their best. We salute them for struggling against the odds. But they could not overcome Corker’s resistance to modifying what he’d negotiated with the Democrats, other senior Republicans’ unwillingness to challenge a committee chairman’s work, the pro-Israel establishment’s commitment to bipartisanship, and a general lack of urgency about acting now to stop a bad Iran deal.

The effort was not entirely in vain. These senators at least began to educate their colleagues and the country in the many ways in which the deal toward which the Obama administration is hurtling is a very bad one. And perhaps the House will improve the legislation as it comes over to that body. 

What is crucial now is that the broader anti-nuclear Iran effort not take the next two months off while Kerry negotiates. What is crucial now is that opponents of a nuclear Iran put aside tactical differences to focus on the fundamental task: preventing—or laying the groundwork for defeating—a deal that paves the way toward a Middle East dominated and intimidated by a terror-sponsoring, America-hating, Israel-denying, nuclear-weapons-capable Iran, whose economy will be strengthened with sanctions removed and whose nuclear weapons infrastructure the “international community” will have blessed.

For our part, we “absolutely guarantee” that if there is no further effort to rally opposition to this deal until after it’s signed, it will be too late. That’s why some senators had a sense of urgency about shaping the debate now. They were rebuffed by their elders in the Senate. But the fight goes on. It is a fight against strengthening the Iranian regime at home and abroad, a fight against a nuclear shield for Iranian terror, a fight against a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, a fight for a strong America and for a secure Israel.

The battle over Corker-Cardin may be over. The fight to stop the Iran deal has just begun.

Happy Mother's Day!

Malka Leifer's community harassed abuse claimant: court

Sexual Pervert Malka Leifer

Members of an orthodox Jewish community threatened a Melbourne woman with ostracism if her sister didn't drop a civil sex abuse claim against a headmistress, the Victorian Supreme Court has heard.

The woman, whose two sisters made a complaint to police about alleged sexual assault at the Adass Israel School in Elsternwick Melbourne, was harassed and pressured shortly before her death from a heart attack at age 39, the court heard.

"They threatened her with her job, and her reputation and her children's marriage prospects," the woman's sister, and the claimant in the civil matter, told the court on Thursday.

The Adass Israel School in Elsternwick Melbourne and its former headmistress Malka Leifer are being sued by an ex-student who says she was sexually abused up to several times a week from age 15.

Last August Ms Leifer was arrested in Israel, where she fled in 2008 when sex abuse allegations emerged, and is facing extradition to Australia.

Another sister, who also alleges sex abuse, told the court it was impossible for people to speak out against authority figures in the insular, orthodox community.

"You wouldn't dare try because you would be ostracised," she told the court on Thursday.

"I tried and it didn't get me anywhere."

The first sister earlier told the court she was shielded from the outside world as a child, prevented from watching television or accessing the internet and was only allowed to read censored books.

Her first contact with the "outside" world was in 2011 when she was admitted to a clinic after she became suicidal, she told the court.

The woman suffered depression, post-traumatic stress, and had flashbacks that made it difficult to bond with her daughter, born in 2010, but was refused support or money for counselling from the school, she said.

The trial continues before Justice John Rush.

Murder charges against Freddie Gray cops may be DROPPED because police findings don't support the case, say officials

Baltimore City State Attorney charged six officers over death of Gray

Separate police probe of case says manslaughter is most serious crime 

Defense lawyers are arguing that arrest for knife possession was legal

'If this case falls apart, will Baltimore burn?' one official asked 

The"brilliant" Black AG

The murder charges filed against the Baltimore officers who arrested Freddie Gray could be dropped, because the police investigation into his death doesn't support the prosecution's case, it's been reported.

Last Friday, Baltimore City State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby levelled charges ranging from assault to second-degree murder at six police officers involved in Gray's death. He had suffered a fatal spinal injury while in police custody.

However, officials familiar with the case have revealed that police investigators do not agree with the charges.

The officials said that the internal probe team do not believe a charge more serious than manslaughter should be brought against any of the officers, according to CNN.

What's more, defense lawyers are mounting a challenge to Mosby's assertion that the officers had unlawfully arrested Gray because the knife he had in his pocket is considered legal under Maryland state law.

Marc Zayon, the attorney for Edward Nero, one of the officers charged, argued in a motion filed Monday that the knife in Gray's pocket — described in charging documents as 'a spring assisted, one hand operated knife' — is in fact illegal under state law.

'If the facts were that the knife was illegal then the Gray arrest would be justified. Even if it wasn't illegal and the officers acted in good faith, it would be the same result. All charges fail,' said lawyer Andy Alperstein, who is not involved in the investigation.

Defense lawyers may also exploit the past of a member of Mosby's investigative team, CNN said.

One of her lead investigators is Avon Mackel, a former senior Baltimore police officer whose reputation is tainted by a 2009 incident that led to him being removed from his command post.

He was accused of not tackling two officers who failed to report a robbery.

Lawyers for the defense could reason that he holds a grudge against the department. 

Nero and Officer Garrett Miller are charged with misdemeanors. Four others — Sgt. Alicia White, Lt. Brian Rice and officers Caesar Goodson and William Porter — are charged with felonies ranging from manslaughter to second-degree 'depraved-heart' murder.

An official told CNN: 'If this case falls apart, then does Baltimore burn?'

The charges against the officers came near the close of a turbulent week in which violence, looting and fires erupted in the streets April 27 only hours after Gray's funeral that Monday.

Meanwhile, Baltimore's mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake has asked the US Justice Department to investigate the case.

The Democratic mayor now says she'll accept outside intervention to rebuild public trust in a city torn by riots over the death of Freddie Gray.

'I am determined not to allow a small handful of bad actors to tarnish the reputation of the overwhelming majority of police officers who are acting with honor and distinction,' she wrote in a letter to the new U.S. attorney general, Loretta Lynch.

HOW BALTIMORE STATE'S ATTORNEY MARILYN MOSBY FACES UPHILL BATTLE TO SECURE MURDER CONVICTION AGAINST OFFICERS IN FREDDIE GRAY CASE

Two other high profile cases - Michael Brown in Ferguson and Eric Garner in New York - resulted in no criminal charges against officers involved in their hideous deaths.

This came despite there being video evidence in the case of Garner showing his brutal death and dozens of eyewitness accounts in Brown's death.

Mosby does not have the benefit of a video capturing a decisive moment where lethal force was used such as the video showing a North Charleston, South Carolina, police officer shooting a fleeing Walter Scott multiple times in the back. 

+11

Example: This photograph from earlier in the week shows a Baltimore Police version of the van, similar to the one driven by Caesar Goodson but in order to win a conviction, city prosecutors will have to convince a jury that Goodson acted so recklessly that he knew his actions could take Gray's life

Despite initial claims by authorities that the shooting was in self-defense, the officer was quickly charged with murder after the video was provided to the media.

In the Gray case, the video evidence is much murkier, with no visual evidence the officers purposely beat him. 

Expert witnesses are likely to disagree on whether Gray was seriously injured when the Baltimore officers pinned him to the sidewalk and cuffed his hands behind his back. 

Gray was recorded asking for medical assistance as he was hefted into the waiting van, his feet dragging along behind him.

In her statement of facts, Mosby alleged the officers later also bound Gray's feet together and placed him in the van face-down, rather than buckling him into a seat belt as required by departmental procedures. 

That would have left Gray unable to brace himself as he slide around on the floor as the van traveled through Baltimore. 

She also recounted the multiple stops made by the van, even after it likely became clear he was in distress. Nearly an hour passed before Gray received any medical attention.

+11

Journey: Freddie Gray died a week after his arrest on April 12 . He suffered a 'catastrophic' injury and died a week later in hospital. Caesar Goodson was at the wheel of the van in which he was put after the arrest

+11

Route: According to police, these are the stops the van made while transporting Gray to the station

The prosecutor steered clear of specifically alleging Goodson took Gray on a 'Rough Ride,' the term commonly applied in Baltimore to the practice of the driver making quick stops and sharp turns so as to slam the prisoner around in the back of the van.

Glenn Ivey, a defense attorney and the former chief prosecutor in Prince George's County, Maryland, said Mosby's prosecution would likely be considered successful if she were to secure any felony conviction against the officers that results in lengthy terms in prison. 

Second-degree assault carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.

'Typically in police cases, if you get a conviction on almost any of the charges, it's viewed as successful, because police cases are hard to win,' he said.

Adding: 'Even in Baltimore city, where juries tend to be skeptical of police officers, they can still make compelling defendants and persuasive witnesses.' 

By bringing charges less than two weeks after Gray's death, Mosby, 35, said her decision showed 'no one is above the law.' 

Yet, within hours, the city's police union questioned the prosecutor's impartiality, accusing her of a rush to judgment and demanding she excuse herself from the case.  

Following the announcement of the charges, the prevailing mood on the city's streets changed to relief.

But defense attorneys for the officers will likely use Mosby's own public statements about the case against her in requests that the venue for the trial be moved outside of Baltimore. 

Though such changes of venue are relatively rare, there have been several examples of such motions being granted in cases that have garnered intense media coverage.

This happens when local officials are deemed to have made public statements that could unfairly influence potential jurors. 

Chabad IDF Officer And Rabbi Attacked By Chareidie savages In Beit Shemesh

Maj Shraga Dahan

An IDF officer was attacked by ultra-Orthodox savages on Monday evening while paying a shiva call at a home in a Charedi Beit Shemesh neighborhood. Maj. Shraga Dahan, a military chaplain and Chassidic Jew, was in the insular neighborhood of Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet with another rabbi to pay their respects to a family in mourning when they were attacked by members of an extremist sect known as the Sicarii. Dahan and the rabbi were both verbally and physically abused, with their attackers spitting and throwing garbage at them and calling them Nazis. Dahan, a French immigrant, is the rabbi of the Tel Hashomer military base, one of the country’s largest. Ultra-Orthodox residents of the neighborhood came to the pair’s defense, helping them escape and hurling invective at the attackers, one witness to the attack told The Jerusalem Post. "The IDF views with severity, denounces and condemns any attempt to harm its commanders and soldiers. The Rabbi is proud of his military service and of wearing his uniform,” the IDF said in a statement Wednesday evening. A similar incident occurred on Holocaust Remembrance Day, when protesters from Ramat Beit Shemesh Bet entered a nearby moderate Charedi neighborhood and screamed Nazi at a Charedi soldier, like Dahan a member of the Chabad movement, walking nearby. In response, national-religious and secular city residents held a Yom Hazikaron memorial ceremony at the entrance to Bet, prompting further confrontations. During last summer’s Gaza war, a reservist in uniform visiting Bet was physically assaulted. Posters and stickers portraying ultra-Orthodox soldiers as pigs in uniform can be seen throughout the city. The posters also refer to these soldiers by the derogatory Hebrew acronym “hardakim” meaning weak-minded Charedi, which is an amalgam of the words Charedi and harakim, or insects. The problem has been severe enough in several neighborhoods that the army decided last May to allow Charedi soldiers to travel home sans their uniforms. And while in some parts of the city soldiers in uniform are a common site, one resident told the Post that she had seen soldiers waiting for buses near Charedi neighborhoods being verbally abused by passersby. English-speaking residents of the town took to Facebook to complain and discuss ways in which to combat the phenomenon. “It’s old news. Happens every week,” one American immigrant complained. “Need to go stand [in their neighborhood] on Friday morning by where this cult lives with our soldiers and piss them off, [a protest] anywhere but in their area is a waste of everyones time.” “These events need to be publicized to [brethren abroad], who continue to stream money to these corrupt communities every day in their shuls and at their front doors,” another suggested. In a letter to supporters on Tuesday, local resident and former MK Dov Lipman wrote he and others are planning what he called “a non-political unity rally” against the extremists. "We, in Bet Shemesh, have had enough. Extremism is one thing. Mistreating those risking their lives to defend you is another. We are in contact with the police to arrange a massive demonstration - at the spot where this soldier was attacked in the extremist neighborhood - and will call on citizens and leaders from around Israel to join us," Lipman told the Post Asked about the incident, Beit Shemesh’s Charedi Mayor Moshe Abutbul told that Post that his administration "strongly condemn[s] all acts of violence against people. [This] is not the way of the Torah and the rabbis [are] against it."

Dionne Warwick is coming to Israel, says won't succumb to BDS pressures

After entertainer Lauryn Hill cancelled her show in Israel for political reasons, American diva Dionne Warwick said Wednesday that she has no plans to cancel her upcoming Tel Aviv performance, saying that "art has no boundaries." 

A statement released to the press read that Ms. Warwick "would never fall victim to the hard pressures of Roger Waters, from Pink Floyd, or other political people who have their views on politics in Israel." 

Outspoken Israel critic Roger Waters and Pink Floyd frontman has called on entertainers to nix their Israel performances in line with the Boycott Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. 

"Waters’ political views are of no concern to Ms. Warwick, as she holds her own unique views on world matters. Art has no boundaries. Ms. Warwick will always honor her contracts," the statement read.  

"If Ms. Warwick had an objection to performing in Israel, no offer would have been entertained and no contract would have been signed," the statement concluded. 

Answering questions from The Jerusalem Post via email ahead of her show in Tel Aviv at the Menorah Mivtachim Arena on May 19, Warwick said she was no stranger to Israel, and has visited the country several times. "I always enjoy the wonderful audiences that Israel brings out! I think of the colorful people and the beautiful scenery."

Tickets to Warwick’s show are available at *8780 or at www.leaan.co.il