Sunday, May 25, 2014

The Brooklyn Rabbi and His Child Porn Collection

Daily Beast      Samuel Waldman, one of the main alleged child porn purveyors named in ‘Operation Caireen,’ is only the latest in a series of scandals buffeting Brooklyn's ultra-Orthodox community.

Among the 71 people charged in Wednesday’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement child porn ring bust, there are more than a handful of surprising offenders, including a Little League coach and a former Westchester police chief. But for those familiar with the Brooklyn ultra-Orthodox community’s repeated failure to report sexual abuse, seeing Rabbi Samuel Waldman arrested for the alleged possession of child pornography is no shocker.

It was Waldman’s own disturbing collection of child pornography, law enforcement officials say, that helped lead them to uncover dozens of other purveyors in “Operation Caireen.” His was one of two initial investigations—the other was of Brian Fanelli, a one-time Mount Pleasant police chief—that eventually led to Wednesday’s announcement of 71 arrests. On March 5, Waldman, 52, was charged with the transportation and distribution of child pornography. According to a criminal complaint filed in federal court, Waldman shared multiple child pornography files on publicly available peer-to-peer networks out of his home in the Kensington section of Brooklyn. These files, the complaint alleges, included a video of girls “between the ages of approximately four and eleven years of age” performing oral sex and being anally and vaginally penetrated by older men, and a clip of a naked prepubescent boy “being masturbated by another unknown person until the child ejaculates.”[...]

103 comments :

  1. While Waldman doesn't deserve a shelishi in shul, does he really deserve to be arrested, skewered in public, face all those years in prison and being listed as a sex offender for life? Does his family deserve those bizyonos?

    This is the result of dumb laws passed by an immoral society that recognizes homosexual marriages but will lock up someone for many years for looking at pornography. According to halacha, a non-religious man who has relations with his own wife (assuming she's a nidah) has commited a much greater sin that someone that views child pornography (which is of course also forbidden).

    ReplyDelete
  2. We are not just talking about looking at pornography but distributing it. Your argument can be applied to every crime - what did the family do to deserve the shame. And therefore what? The Torah does not avoid punishment because the family will suffer.


    Furthermore your bean counting approach does not adequately describe the severity of the crime. In order to satisfy the lusts of these men - little children are raped and abused in horrific fashion. I assume you agree with Rabbi Scheinberg mistaken view that sexual abuse without penetration is not a significant crime? What would you do if you found out that your child's teacher was sexually abusing him/her and and putting videos of the abuse on the Internet. Would you talk then about the insignificance of the crime relative to a non-religous man and his wife who is a nidah?! What if you found that your son-in-law was sexually abusing your 1 year old grandson? what if your children were persuaded over the internet to undress and do various sexual acts. Is the pervert doing anything wrong according to halacha?



    You need to get beyond the bean counting and look at the devastion these actions are causing little children as well as the moral decay of the religious and secular communities.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 25, 2014 at 1:02 PM

    If he were simply looking at images of consenting adults I would agree. It would make him a rasha, but it would be, debateablly, a victimless crime.

    However, he is looking at images of children being raped. What is more to satisfy the pornographer's desires for new images ect more children need to be raped and abused. So he is directly implicit in the sexual abuse of young children.

    According to halacha, a non-religious man who has relations with his own wife (assuming she's a nidah) has commited a much greater sin that someone that views child pornography (which is of course also forbidden).
    If he simply looked I guess you may be correct. However if there was any form of zera l'vatala involved than I am afraid that you are very much incorrect.

    ReplyDelete
  4. We are lucky not to have the sick cravings this man has. I will hold ju

    ReplyDelete
  5. We are lucky not to have the sick cravings this man has. I will hold judgment to find out if he indeed viewed and distributed said images. However, this is not direct involvement as Rabbi Tzadok suggests. As a father of four children I am disgusted. However, while it is sick, perverse and gross if true, it is still somewhat victimless. The sick desires are out there. He is paying or freely viewing horrific actions. But I doubt a man with a 5 figure salary is likely to have an impact on the child porn market.
    We can only imagine going through life with an overwhelming sick urge. If a man only views images of that nature, he is gratifying himself without hurting others.
    I only hope that it stopped there. I have an acquaintance who is middle aged and never married. He visits Amsterdam "to see the kvorim" quite often. I assume he can't control his more normal urges. Some people have sick urges. I would hope all they do is look at pictures. if we punish the viewing of pictures as much as we do horrible actions, there will be little to deter sickos from going ahead with the unthinkable.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Rabbi Michael Tzadok,

    Without going into the many other issues raised in this discussion, please note that with regard to your last paragraph, you are incorrect. According to normative Halacha, Zerah L'Vatala is preferred to being Boel a Niddah, given the choice. (While this should be obvious, there is an explicit Teshuva from the Igros Moshe with that P'sak L'Halacha L'Maaseh.)

    Again, none of the above speaks to the other issues raised by R. Eidensohn in his next comment that reject the "bean counting" approach. I am just pointing out to you that if we are speaking about the "bean counting" approach (ie; strict levels of issur as opposed to evaluating societal harm, etc.) your heirarchy of severity of aveiros is incorrect.

    Yes it is true that Chazal and the Zohar say very severe things about Motzi Zera Levatala, (probably more severe than what they say about Boel Niddah) but as you can see from R' Moshe's Tshuva, L'Halacha L'Maaseh, we go according to a heirarchy of D'Rabannans, Lavin, Krisos U'Misos Bais Din, etc. (Don't forget, if you are to take every Chazal speaking of these matters L'Dina, you would have relations with a Zona just as soon as foregoing washing your hands before eating...).

    ReplyDelete
  7. Rabbi E.


    There are two parts to this.


    1) The indirect harm of distribution - I agree with you on this.


    2) Whether we should hold the "distribution" issue against Waldman - this I would like to convince you not to.


    Please note, had W. simply (a) clicked on a child porn image based on a google search, he would not be where he is. Instead he (b) used a file sharing program, which allows others to "take" from his computer, even as he was "taking" from them.


    I think you should realize that W. was interested in (a) and was presumably disinterested and would likely would have been horrified if he would have known he was doing (b). I am confidant if he would have known that he could move the files out of the P2P folder and save them elsewhere on his computer so they would be unavailable to other users, he would happily have done so.


    Clearly, this is not a web-savvy kind of guy. The story makes it sound like he was part of a ring of picture traders, who knew each other and fed each other's Ta'avos, etc. This is unfair. He was a guy who had a problem peeking at dirty pictures. He should not have done so. BUT he was not paying anyone for them (thus incentivizing anyone to go create more). He had a Ta'ava to look at something that in many cultures would be acceptable as healthy (underage - the age of consent has and does vary greatly. And males are actually a acceptable outlet in America - although not in Saudi Arabia - today). In our culture it is not considered healthy, and he should have controlled himself. Furthermore, in our religion, even healthy pictures should not be viewed; one is supposed to channel one's desires to one's wife.


    But he really was doing something private, that as far as he knew (remember - I am sure he did not understand that using P2P makes you a sharer as well as a user) in no way other than the far theoretical (since he was not paying for them) did he harm these kids or other potential future victims.


    Its bad, but the media making him sound like an evil guy working as part of a ring that directy or indirectly harmed kids is extremely unfair.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 25, 2014 at 8:31 PM

    I was going with the B"Y and the Shulhan Arukh. When the Shulhan Arukh says(Even HaEzer 23:1):
    אסור להוציא שכבת זרע לבטלה ועון זה חמור מכל עבירות שבתורה


    I would have to see the Igros Moshe of which you speak inside, but I hope that you see that I am by no means bound to hold Rav Moshe Feinstein over the B"Y, Shulhan Arukh, Arizal and Rashash.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Let's try a different approach - if he knew that the only way to get porn was to allow his computer to restribute it - do you think he would have stopped? I doubt it and I don't share your confidance.

    ReplyDelete
  10. There is no Machlokes. R' Moshe is not saying a Chidush, it is already a Chelkas Mechokek 23:1 citing Sefer Chasidim (siman 176). This Halacha is also cited by Beis Shmuel (1), who proves from here that the Zohar and Shulchan Aruch which state that הוצאת ז"ל is more stringent than all other עבירות are not to be taken literally.


    You have to learn the Shulchan Aruch with the Mefarshim to know the Halacha. If the Zohar is לאו דוקא then the same can be said for the Arizal and Rashash as well. Serious errors like Rabbi MT's here are among the reasons why the Acharonim urged a person to be ממלא כריסו בש"ס ופוסקים before delving into mysticism.


    This is all quite apart from the fact that Halacha follows Poskim, not Kabbalists.


    Can Rabbi MT find ONE source - a HALACHIC source - which states definitively not like the Sefer Chasidim - i.e. that one should be (G-d forbid) בא על הנדה instead of מוציא זרע לבטלה? Acc. to Rabbi MT, it would also be better to rape, torture, murder and serve עבודה זרה - because the Zohar says that the worst עבירה is הוצאת זרע לבטלה!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Sounds like a thought crime. IF he would have known then he still would have done it...

    ReplyDelete
  12. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 25, 2014 at 11:21 PM

    Chaim,
    This is the second time you have made one of these,


    Second the Rashash, for Sephardim at leas is a HALACHIC source.


    Third, you are reading the Beit Shmuel wrong. While I agree that the Helkat Mehokek sides with the Sefer Chassidim, the Beit Shmuel does not, as the Chida says in the Birkei Yosef:
    ועון זה חמור מכל העורות שבתורה וכו' הרב בית שמואל קשה על דברי ספר החסידים סי' תע"ו ונדחק בדברי הזוהר הקדוש

    The Birkei Yosef then goes on to mashiv the kushiya of Sepher Hassidim, and prove the words of the Zohar and the Shulhan Arukh.

    But I understand that the Birkei Yosef may not be enough for you, so please turn your attention to the Kaf HaHaim 240:6


    I could go on with the Yaskil Avdei, the Ben Ish Hai, the Yabia Omerת Rav Yaakov Hillel... but I think you get the point. You may say that Ashkenazi Halakha falls your way, but Sephardi Halakha stands clearly with the B"Y and Sh"A.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can't believe that through these details: ezizaoguntemple@gmail.com and +2348058176289 i was able to get my lost lover back just within 48 hours. Well let me first of all give honor to whom honor is due by introducing the great man that brought my lover back called Dr.Eziza. I had some issues with my lover which lead to a big quarrel and we eventually broke up, After the break up i felt very terrible with myself and i needed solution on how to get my lover back. So through Google i was able to get Dr.Eziza contact details and i contacted him then the rest was history. So people no need to wonder around seeking for solution else where just contact Dr.Eziza on +2348058176289 and ezizaoguntemple@gmail.com and your lover will be knocking on your door begging you to accept him back

    ReplyDelete
  14. Daas Torah- I am not attacking you personally, but I have major issues
    with your fundamental world view.

    You summarise your worldview nicely in a comment to a
    previous post.

    ““at some point you have to decide whether
    your identity is a frum Jew or a human being who happens to be Jewish. The two are not fully compatible.”

    Let me ask you a question, hypothetically if homosexuals in the orthodox world that openly acted on their sexuality, with
    no remorse, suffered the same as a victim of child abuse, because of the out casting and shunning that these homosexuals will endure, would you then say that because of their terrible suffering we should be more compassionate and
    accepting?

    Compassion and empathy are deep and fundamental components of being human.

    You seem to believe that when Halacha and the human soul clash, the human soul ceases to be, because there is only on reality, the Halacha.

    You are not saying that there is a halachic and human reality and they are both real, no we identify as a frum Jew, and our human soul falls away.

    Your worldview when applied absolutely is a direct cause of the tragic views of both “humble jew” “According to halacha, a non-religious man who has relations with his own wife (assuming she's a nidah) has commited a much greater sin that someone that views child pornography
    (which is of course also forbidden).”

    And Rabbi Michael Tzadok “If he simply looked I guess you may be correct. However if there was any form of zera
    l'vatala involved than I am afraid that you are very much incorrect."

    It is a good thing that you don’t fully subscribe to your worldview, and you responded with your human soul

    “You need to get beyond the bean counting and look at the devastion these actions are causing little children”



    Can you understand why I find this word view so dark and cold? I am not saying that we can remove the Torah law against homosexual relations, but I am saying that just as the Halacha is a reality, the need for intimacy is just as real, and the need for compassion is also a reality.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As has happened before, Rabbi MT, you have made me aware of things of which I was not - but the majority of your assertions are still erroneous:


    The Rashash is not a Halachic source for non-Kabbalist Sefardim.


    The Beis Shmuel does not reject the Sefer Chasidim, he merely says that acc. to the SC we must say that the Zohar and Shulchan Aruch are לאו דוקא. Nowhere does the Chida say or indicate otherwise.


    The Kaf HaChaim is not making a Halachic point - he is talking about the great spiritual destructive power of הוז"ל, and if, as Beis Shmuel says, the Zohar is not a contradiction to the Sefer Chasidim, then neither is the Kaf HaChaim (by the way, who rejects the Chida but accepts the Kaf HaChaim?)


    The B"Y and Sh"A are not relevant, since the very issue is whether to take their statement - the Zohar's statement - literally or not. There are many statements of Chazal which are not supposed to be taken literally - I hope that if, given the choice, you would choose to speak Loshon Hora rather than violate the שלש עבירות חמורות.


    You ARE correct in one point - that the Chida argues on the Beis Shmuel's understanding of the Sefer Chasidim and maintains that הוז"ל is actually more חמור than all other עבירות, פשוטו כמשמעו הלכה למעשה. He explains the Sefer Chasidim in a way which tallies with this understanding. I was not aware of this, so thank you.


    I would be interested to know if there are other POSKIM who accept the Chida's opinion.


    Another point to consider, relevant to the present thread, is the Beis Shmuel (מהדו"ק)'s suggestion that any הוצאת זרע which occurs during a מעשה ביאת איסור is considered to be לבטלה (with this he reconciles the Sefer Chasidim with the Zohar). Acc.to this, a בועל נדה is usually much more חמור than a מוציא זרע לבטלה.


    Halachically an עון שיש בו כרת is always considered more חמור than an עון שיש בו מיתה בידי שמיםץ. So נדה is more חמור than הוצאת זרע לבטלה.


    Another indicator is the fact that almost all Poskim write that הוז"ל is not יהרג ואל יעבור, whereas ביאות אסורות are יהרג ואל יעבור - and acc. to Beis Yosef and Shach, this includes נדה.


    You have written on a different post about your, I don't know which word to use - unease? with the the ספר הקדוש ליקוטי אמרים תניא, but if you look there (סוף פרק ז) you will see that in some ways הוז"ל is more חמור than ביאות אסורות, and that in some ways it is less.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 6:43 AM

    The Rashash is not a Halachic source for non-Kabbalist Sefardim.

    First there is no such thing as "non-Kabbalist" Sephardim. Secondly you assertion that the Rashash is not considered a halakhic source is simply not true. You need only actually read the writings of the Ben Ish Hai or Rav Ovadia to understand that.


    Your own disdain for all things Kabbalistic has been well noted. However please don't project your anti-Kabbalistic feelings where they do not belong.

    Nowhere does the Chida say or indicate otherwise.

    See quote above.

    The Kaf HaChaim is not making a Halachic point

    SImply not true.

    as Beis Shmuel says, the Zohar is not a contradiction to the Sefer Chasidim
    I think you meant to say Chida, and the Chida clearly holds that שז"ל is the most severe sexual sin. That is his point there in the Birkei Yosef. Who holds the Kaf HaCHaim and rejects the Chida? The Yaskil Avdei and Rav Ovadia Yosef in several places. The Kaf HaChaim and Chida do not always agree. But that is a side point.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Child pornography is not a victimless crime as it affects the children that are abused in the production and consumption of it. The consumers of child pornography are responsible for this crime as without them there would be no demand for the product.

    Laws against the production and distribution of child porn are not 'dumb and immoral'. They are there to protect our children and are not the product of an immoral society that recognizes homosexual marriages.



    Your logic is counter intuitive as there are still places in the world that do not recognise homosexual marriage and have extremely severe consequences for people who engage in child pornography. You only have to look at Australia for an example of this.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I find this discussion very interesting. Since there are so many experts on halacha in this forum, let me ask you this -purely hypothetical- question:
    What would incur a harsher punishment according to halacha:


    A 40-year old man, not married, buys a 6-year-old girl from her father, marries her, sends her to mikwa and has sexual intercourse with her 10 times per week during 8 years
    or
    A 40-year old man, not married, has consensual sexual intercourse with a 40-year old woman, who went to mikwa, but is married to another (jewish) man.

    ReplyDelete
  19. aeiou - sounds like you are very well aware of the answer. Why are you asking it?

    If you are asking the punishment when a Sanhedrin is involved then it is obvious that the 2nd case is capital punishment - but not the first.

    However regarding the world we live in - the first case would not be allowed to happen or the rabbis would require a divorce. How many minors do you know that have gotten married? I assume you are aware of the case a few years ago when a man claimed that he had married his minor daughter to someone. He refused however to divulge who it was. The consensus of the poskim was that the kiddushin was not valid.

    As I assume you know - there are is a two component judicial system to deal with problems. The first is based on Torah and Talmudic law - the second deal with the needs and perception of a particular age. There is no question that rabbinical leaders and/or a beis din today would intervene in the first case.

    ערוך השולחן חושן משפט סימן ב

    סעיף א
    אף על פי שאין דנין בחו"ל דיני נפשות ומלקות וקנסות מ"מ אם רואים ב"ד שהשעה צריכה לכך שהעם פרוצים בעבירות דנים הכל כפי צורך השעה ואפילו כשרואים ליחיד שהוא פרוץ בעבירות יכולים לקנסו כפי ראות עיניהם ובלבד שתהיה כוונתם לשמים ואפילו אין בדבר עדות גמורה אלא שיש רגלים לדבר וקלא דלא פסיק וליכא אויבים דמפקי לקלא אם נראה שזהו צורך שעה לדונו בכך וכך צריכים לעשות כן אם יש יכולת בידם שאם נעמיד הכל על הדין ונצריך עדים והתראה נמצא העולם חרב ולא חרבה ירושלים אלא מפני שהעמידו דבריהם על דין תורה [רשב"א בתשובות חלק ג' סי' שצ"ג] ויש להם רשות לייסרו בגופו וממונו כפי שרואים לגדור הפרצה ואם הוא אלם עושים ע"י ערכאות המלוכה והם יצוו עליו עשה מה שדת ישראל אומר לך וכל מי שיש כח בידו לעשות סייג לתורה ואינו עושה אין לו סייג בעוה"ז ובעוה"ב ולא נין ונכד ועצור ועזוב [ב"י בשם מדרש הנעלם] וכן מחוייבים להשגיח שלא ימצא חלילה בין ישראל איזה מחשבת מרד אף בלב נגד אדונינו הקיר"ה ושריו וכבר אמרו חז"ל שהקב"ה השביע את ישראל שלא ימרודו במלכיות [כתובות קי"א א] וכתיב [משלי כד, כא] ירא את ד' בני ומלך ומלכותא דארעא כעין מלכותא דרקיע:

    סעיף ב
    וכח זה הוא רק לגדול בתורה או לטובי העיר שטובי העיר בעירם כחם כב"ד הגדול ובזמנינו מוטל על הרב וטובי העיר לגדור פרצות ישראל בכל יכולתם וכל אשר יעשו איזה מכס מוכרחים הצבור לקיים אף דאיכא רווחא להאי ופסידא להאי כיון שדבר זה נוגע לתקוני הצבור או למיגדר מילתא ומי שמעכב בזה או מקלקל הוא חבירו של ירבעם בן נבט ואל תשגיח אם יש גם מהלומדים שמחזקים המהרסים דמסתמא אין בהם יראת שמים דוק ותשכח:

    ReplyDelete
  20. "Your own disdain for all things Kabbalistic has been well noted. However please don't project your anti-Kabbalistic feelings where they do not belong."


    Chas Veshalom! I have only the greatest respect and תשוקה for חכמת האמת and the מקובלים. Please do not confuse me with Eddie. If you would have read my arguments with him on this subject, and you are honest, then you would know this.


    However, you know that the שיטה of Rav Ovadia זצ"ל and almost all the Poskim is that we follow the Halacha and Poskim against the מקובלים, despite their greatness, just as usually the Halacha does not follow Rashbi against the other Tannaim, despite his greatness. You cannot be naive enough to be ignorant of this fact.


    [The fact that I quoted the Tanya, a work steeped in Kabbala (even if some disagree with his teachings), and then you accuse me of being anti-Kabbala, makes me suspect that you are not being honestin this thread.]


    When I said non-kabbalistic Sefardim, I did not mean Sefardim who reject the Zohar ח"ו, but rather was referring to the vast majority who subscribe to the mainstream view that when it comes to Halacha, we always listen to the Poskim.


    So I have defended myself against your baseless and slanderous accusation. As to your other points, they are all either mistaken or off the mark (and no, I wrote Beis Shmuel and meant Beis Shmuel).


    You still have not told me if there is any other Posek who holds like the Chida. Do I have to beg?

    ReplyDelete
  21. "that the 2nd case is capital punishment - but not the first."
    What would be the punishment in the case there was a sanhedrin for the first case?


    What would be the punishment according to halacha for the first case in our day and age.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Another example: One person eats a cheeseburger. Another tortures and dismembers 17 cats and 15 rabbits - cute ones, too! Who is more wicked? But who will be punished more according to the letter of the law?

    ReplyDelete
  23. aeiou - what is the punishment if a man insists on having sex 10 times a day wife his 30 year old wife who is not interested? The child is considered his wife - so the fact that she is a minor - is not a crime. The fact that she is not interested in sex - as I have note before - a husband is prohibited from forcing his wife to have sex and there is no difference between a minor and and an adult.


    The beis din would intervene and require a get. This is no different than a husband beating his wife - which requires a divorce and some say that his arm would be amputated.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Rabbeinu Simcha[i](Beis
    Yosef E.H 154:3): (2) It is an accepted view that when a husband beats his
    wife it is a more severe crime then when he beats his fellow man. That is
    because there is no obligation to honor his fellow man while concerning his
    wife he is commanded to honor her more than he honors himself (Yevamos 62b). A person who beats his wife is to be placed in cherem and ostracized as well as flogged and punished with all manner of punished even to the point of cutting off his hand if he constantly beats her (Sanhedrin 58b). If she wants to get out of the marriage he should give her a divorce and she receives her kesuba. An attempt should be made to make peace between them but if he doesn’t comply
    and continues to beat her and degrade her he should be excommunicated and forced by the secular government to divorce her or be forced to comply with
    whatever the Jewish authorities tell him (Gittin 88b)…

    Gra[i](Shulchan
    Aruch E.H. 154:9): If he habitually beats her cut off his hand – as it says in Sanhedrin (58b) that Rav Huna cut off the hand of someone who habitually hit others – and surely if the victim is his own wife.
    :

    ReplyDelete
  25. The problem imho is the chilul hashem

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 2:11 PM

    Rav Ovadia Yabia Omer 4 EH"E 1:5 talks about the severity of issur of ShZ"L and ends up at the same place as the Shulhan Arukh.

    Yabia Omer 6 Y"D 3:3 he directly deals with the B"Sh and Helkat Mehokek, and rules decidedly against them.

    So I have defended myself against your baseless and slanderous accusation.
    My friend once again your very first comment in response to what I said to another commenter was a string of baseless and slanderous accusations.

    You have to learn the Shulchan Aruch with the Mefarshim to know the Halacha. If the Zohar is לאו דוקא then the same can be said for the Arizal and Rashash as well. Serious errors like Rabbi MT's here are among the reasons why the Acharonim urged a person to be ממלא כריסו בש"ס ופוסקים before delving into mysticism.
    Never mind that I do have the weight of Sephardi opinion behind me(including Rav Ovadia). So please enlighten me how claiming that I have made serious errors, when my position mirrors the Chida, the Kaf HaHaim and Rav Ovadia??? I would like to know.
    Further in our previous discussion you claimed that the Shulhan Arukh, and thus halakha was against Rabbi Meir, while that is the Sephardi position in a hefsed merube, the only way you could come to that was by ignoring the Shita of the Rema and the Shakh(98:34) on the daf. What you have in fact done is proven כל הפוסל במומו פוסל.
    Further you said in regard to me:
    Acc. to Rabbi MT, it would also be better to rape, torture, murder and serve עבודה זרה - because the Zohar says that the worst עבירה is הוצאת זרע לבטלה!

    Again this while I stand on the words of the Chida, Kaf HaHaim, Yabia Omer and pretty much every Sephardi posek. You make ridiculous accusations while simultaneously claiming that there isn't a single halakhic source that says this.
    So once again aside from the Birkhei Yosef and Kaf HaHaim there is
    Rav Ovadia Yosef
    Yabia Omer 4 EH"E 1:5
    and
    Yabia Omer 6 Y"D 3:3(actually there are several place in Yabia Omer but I thought two would suffice)

    The Ben Ish Hai Rav Pealim 3:2
    האוסור החמור מכל האוסורים

    Rav Yaakov Hillel
    Sfat HaYam Siman 1
    Takanat HaShavim Siman 10.

    We can keep going if you really like, or you can simply admit that when you said:
    There is no Machlokes.

    That you were wrong and that their are a good number of poskim that hold according to the literal words of the Shulhan Arukh.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 2:14 PM

    Don't feed the trolls.

    ReplyDelete
  28. aeiou - there is no punishment today - because it is not allowed to happen. Furthermore there is no indication that child marriages [below the age of 12] actually happened in the time of the Sanhedrin just as there seems to be no mention that polygamy actually existed in the time of the Sanhedrin. There was a rabbinic prohibition against child marriages as noted in.

    Kiddushin 41a: A MAN MAY GIVE HIS DAUGHTER IN BETROTHAL WHEN A NA'ARAH. Only when a na'arah, but not when a minor: this supports Rab. For Rab Judah said in Rab's name: One may not give his daughter in betrothal when a minor, [but must wait] until she grows up and says: ‘I want So-and-so’.

    If it happened today than there would be sanctions from the community - as I noted from Choshen Mishpat 2. and the case of the father who claimed he married off his young daughter. Dina d'malchusa also prevents child marriage.

    Again what is the purpose of your questions? There is doubt that the nature of society we have today is different and there have been major changes in the nature of interpersonal relationships.

    Even in America there was no prohibition against child [below 10 year old] marriages until recently - I think the 1940's

    From Wikipedia

    Historically, child marriage was common around the world. The practice began to be questioned in the 20th century, with the age of individuals'first marriage increasing in many countries and most countries
    increasing the minimum marriage age.

    A New York Times report and other scholars claim the origin of child marriages in India to be Muslim nvasions that began more than 1,000 years ago. The invaders raped unmarried Hindu girls or carried them off as booty, prompting Hindu communities to marry off their daughters early to protect them.[38][39][40] Similarly, among Sephardi Jewishcommunities, child marriages became frequent from 10th to 13th century as Muslim invasion and rule spread in Spain. This practice intensified after the Jewish community was expelled from Spain, and resettled in the Ottoman Empire. Child marriages among the Eastern Sephardic Jews continued through the 19th century in Islamic majority regions.[41][42][43]

    ReplyDelete
  29. If so, why did Chazal oppose Lex Talionis, i.e. the literal reading of "an eye for an eye" etc? Since they implemented it in some cases.

    ReplyDelete
  30. eye for an eye means - the one who caused an eye to be lost loses his eye.


    The amputation is not measure for measure. The one hitting did not cause an arm to be lost. Similarly there were punishments involving blinding or having the nose or ears cut off - this is not an eye for an eye. Rather it was severe punishment to make people have second thoughts about committing the crime.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Absolutely ridiculous that you are arguing over which sin is greater as if there is a point scale. Of course statements like 'this is the worst' are not to be taken literally much like 'torah is equal to everything'. Making blanket statements about how God feels about individual people's challenges in life is absurd.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "a naked prepubescent boy “being masturbated by another unknown person until the child ejaculates.”[...]"
    How does a prepubescent boy ejaculate?

    ReplyDelete
  33. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 6:36 PM

    Totally missed the actual point of the argument.


    First commentor said child pornography, and its usage wasn't really a big deal.


    I argued it was with sources and was essentially called an Am Haaretz.

    I defended myself... and in all fairness not every posek considers those statements hyperbole.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Really? you don't see a conflict of morality?

    ReplyDelete
  35. aeiou - it was obvous from the beginning of your questioning that you were leading up to this. Which is why Rabbi Tzadok raised the troll alarm.


    I answered your questions in the off chance that your questions might actually be sincere and you were genuninely interested in understanding the issue instead of making a case against halacha. If you aren't interested in the answers I provided then there is nothing more to discuss. So no you don't understand what I have said nor are you interested in understanding it.


    There is no more point in continuing this discussion at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Child pornography, since it is a federal offense is often prosecuted and pursued much more vigorously than even actual sexual crimes against minors.


    Is is not uncommon to see a sexual abuser get 2 years, and a down-loader get 8. The laws get even quirkier when it comes to minors downloading child pornography. Yes they can and are also prosecuted! There are cases where minors have gotten 10 years probation for downloading child porn eventually (after turning 18) have to sit with and attend group therapy together with actual child molesters who have gotten less severe punishment.



    Downloading child porn by accident is definitely possible, and your defenses are limited.



    http://www.patrickrobertslaw.com/Articles/Downloading-Adult-Porn-In-Bulk-Can-Get-You-In-Trouble-With-Child-Porn.shtml

    ReplyDelete
  37. I just wanted to know whether humble jew - who I think just wanted to provoke - was right with his assessment.

    I think he was: It could be that from a halachic point of view, this man (Waldman) did not do anything wrong.

    We do not know why he downloaded or shared the pictures, so there might be zera levatala involved.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 7:23 PM

    Waldman shared multiple child pornography files on publicly available peer-to-peer networks out of his home in the Kensington section of Brooklyn. These files, the complaint alleges, included a video of girls “between the ages of approximately four and eleven years of age”


    Sorry but that doesn't say just 2 or 3 images.

    As a second point of note while it is possible while engaging in any p2p behavior to be the victim of receiving feloniously illegal materials, it is your legal duty to contact the authorities with any suspected illegal material. In doing so you gain the legal protection of not being on the wrong side of such a conviction.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Absent a confession, what stops someone from claiming that a third party had acess to their computer & downloaded the material without his knowledge? & if that is a viable claim, how does it affect the rules of loshon hora & toelet?

    ReplyDelete
  40. "there is no punishment today - because it is not allowed to happen"


    So there should be no punishment for murder, because it is not allowed to happen? Nor for theft, nor for rape?


    I always thought farkehrt - that punishment was a disincentive attributed exactly to those things that are not allowed to happen...

    ReplyDelete
  41. aeiou - you need a third party to get married. Rabbis do not marry children. Therefore you don't have 6 year olds getting married. Murder and rape just need two parties - the perpetrator and the victim.

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm not a troll and did not just want to provoke. The laws are absurd as pointed out here, that the actual person that abused the child in the picture often gets a lesser punishment than the one that downloads child porn. The laws were passed by legislators that are unable to pass meaningful laws that actually help society solve abuse problems. Instead, they just feed the blood thirst of the mobs that are eager for some action after stories like Megan, etc.


    I definitely believe that producers of child porn, those that actually abused the child, should be locked away for lengthy periods of time. But someone downloading it, or even passing it on to someone else, should not be locked up for over a decade and then spend the rest of his live on the sex offenders list.


    The Rabbi of this blog claims to have Daas Torah but then promotes daas baal habatim over pure halacha, which he calls bean counting.

    ReplyDelete
  43. you need just 2 witnesses to get married. Not that hard to find...

    And the reason why I cited the example of a father selling his daughter is because victims of pedophiles often are children of parents who do not care, or who urgently need the money, or who implicitly agree to their children undergoing that fate. It happens here with drug addict parents, or brainwashed parents or just poor parents, just as it happens in yemen with poor families with too many children and not enough money.

    ReplyDelete
  44. aeiou - have you ever met or heard about a 6 year old bride?


    As I pointed out earlier - not everything that is wrong is explicitly prohibited by the Torah. Child abuse is a good example. Spousal rape or child rape within marriage is not approved and should lead to divorce if handled properly. Furthermore there are societies where such behavior produces greater psychological harm than others and thus these activities are more immoral. The awareness of the damage of child abuse is relatively recent - about the 1970's. This greater awareness of the harm - led to greater punishments in the secular world and a greater willingness of rabbi's to label abusers as rodef and abuse as pikuach nefesh. Once these two labels were used there was a ready mechanism for clearly prohibiting and bringing punishment to acts of child abuse. Similarly wife abuse apparrently became viewed as a serious crime in the middle ages and rabbis denounced it. Beating children was common not to long ago. But in our society where children are more delicate and can suffer from corporal punishment - it becomes immoral - even though there is no explicit Torah prohibition against it.



    Slavery was similar not viewed as a moral problem until a couple of centuries ago. There were no sanctions against it. I don't think you will find any rabbinic authority that allows slavery today and it is generally viewed as immoral.



    Your simplistic equation of morally reprehenisble and explicit sanction in the Torah is simply not true.

    ReplyDelete
  45. "Spousal rape or child rape within marriage is not approved and should lead to divorce if handled properly."


    But divorce is not a sanction.



    Furthermore, divorce is in the hand of the perpetrator, in this case. So if he does not want to give it, he won't. So that in addition to being raped, the wife will not be free to remarry either.


    torah will impose a sanction on her if she remarries without having obtained a divorce.


    Why is there no sanction for the behavior of the husband?

    ReplyDelete
  46. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 26, 2014 at 11:29 PM

    And Rabbi Michael Tzadok “If he simply looked I guess you may be correct. However if there was any form of zera

    l'vatala involved than I am afraid that you are very much incorrect."

    It is a good thing that you don’t fully subscribe to your worldview, and you responded with your human soul

    “You need to get beyond the bean counting and look at the devastion these actions are causing little children”




    I actually didn't say the latter part that you are attributing to me. However, I don't think you understood my initial assertion, which was that various halakhot as well as ethical issues were violated.

    Halakha provides a base line for what is acceptable behavior, but in Judaism halakha and ethics/morals are not always synonymous. Hence there are no halakhot regarding humility, yashrut and numerous other issues that are typically defined as middot tovot.

    However you are very much conflating issues. An adult homosexual man wanting to have homosexual intimacy, in my mind has very little to do with an adult man(a Rabbi no less) finding some sort of enjoyment in watching girls between the ages of 4 and 11 being raped.

    You think halakha is devoid of soul... To a certain extent you are correct. Again halakha is nothing more or less that the minimal acceptable behavior of a Jew. Now does halakha leave this child wthout protections? No!!! The abuser is a rodef, and all effort should be made to see that their threat to children is forever ceased.

    The consumers of this material are operating against numerous halakhot... Not just the one I pointed out... On and ethical and moral level the issues become much much more severe.

    ReplyDelete
  47. is it not the case that today, such a pervert is a Rodeif b'Yisrael, since it is the most taboos subject amongst the nations. If, for example, the man was simply a "gay", the nations would not care less, as it is fashionable (regardless of the halachic bean counting). Remember, the blood libels were started on false charges of child killing by Jews. Child pornography is today's equivalent. It should not be treated lightly by Jews whether Orthodox or anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 12:05 AM

    In the State of New York first offense for sexual assault against a child has a minimum sentence of 10yrs and a maximum of 25yrs
    http://ypdcrime.com/penal.law/article70.htm

    A first time offender convicted of possesion of child pornography has a minimum sentence of 5yrs and a maximum sentence of 20.
    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2252


    Yes those that produce the child pornography(aka those who actually abuse the children and film it) face a mandatory minimum of 15yrs for a first offense... however they either actively took part in or where complicit to a sexual assault upon a child...

    Your facts about society punishing the one harsher than the other do not match the laws.

    ReplyDelete
  49. aeiou - I gather you are expecting a husband accused by his wife of rape to be stoned or beheaded? Rape of an unmarried girl is also not a capital offense. There simply isn't a correlation between moral offensiveness and prescribed punishment.



    Forcing a husband to divorce his wife is a sanction. Beis Din has the power to force him physically. In Israel today they have the power to put a husband in jail for refusing to give a divorce.



    The issue you are raising applies also in a case where the wife simply decides her husband is boring. He still needs to give the divorce.


    Bottom line - your equation of immorality and punishment is simply wrong. the absence of capital punishment for child abuse - does not mean that halacha views it as not a serious problem. the absence of a psak in shulchan Aruch about downloading child pornagraphy from the Internet does not mean that is is an insignificant crime. One needs to understand the full dynamics of these acts and combine facts such as rodef or public harm or pikuach nefesh etc to see the full halachic picture. You clearly have failed to do so and refuse to consider anything other than an explicit Torah punishment as evidence of serverity..

    ReplyDelete
  50. "The issue you are raising applies also in a case where the wife simply decides her husband is boring. He still needs to give the divorce."


    That's exactly what you have been denying with regard to the friedman and weiss case. But I am very happy to see that you changed position and I hope your brother will follow you soon.



    Because the deeper reason for my questionning is: If you agree that some acts can become crimes even though the torah does not regard them as crimes (like the ones you cited: slavery, corporal punishment, rape, intercourse with children, etc), if you agree that the local justice system should be responsible for punishing them (like going to police in case of child abuse or domestic violence) then why do you have so big a problem with the fact that the local courts also call the shots in divorce settlements.


    I understand that a get needs to be given and taken so that a divorce will be valid according to halacha.


    But why do you agree to the fact that the spouses should have the possibility to change the divorce settlement by withholding a get?


    If US justice is good enough to fight child abuse and domestic violence, why is US justice not good enough to help a couple determine a divorce settlement?


    Especially with regards to the fact that, as you pointed out in a previous post, halachic notions about custody are quite fuzzy.

    ReplyDelete
  51. But it doesn't know that you were the one who was physically sitting at the computer.

    ReplyDelete
  52. aeiou - you are deliberately misreading what I said. I simply said in all cases of divorce the husband is the one who must give it. I didn't equate a case of spousal rape to one of wife who is bored with her husband. My position hasn't changed.


    the answer to you question is obvious. There is a large body of halacha over many centuries that denies the possiblity in divorce cases - but not in child abuse cases.

    ReplyDelete
  53. You wrote a book recommending to alert the police in cases of child abuse and domestic violence, and met great resistance from Rabbis who do not share your point of view.

    So there is a large mass of rabbis stating that child abuse within the jewish community should not be prosecuted (see Weberman case and intimidation attempts against the victim who went to court).

    At the same time, there is a large mass of more moderate rabbis (RCA and equivalent) who contend that a get should be given as soon as a civil divorce was pronounced and who favor prenuptial agreements to that effect....

    Why do you think that both groups do not represent legitimate halacha, or at least one version of legitimate halacha?

    ReplyDelete
  54. the major problem in the case of child abuse is primarily because of ignorance of the serious psychological impact. As rabbis become more knowledgable about abuse it moves from simply an improper activity to one that is pikuach nefesh. the abuser is recognized as a rodef and the one who calls the police is recognized as a rescuer rather than a moser.


    The same process has not happened by divorce. The gemora's view was modified in the time of the geonim and this is relected in the Rambam's ruling. But the Ramban said that the leniency was no longer relevant and this has become the majority view. There has followed a long history of fear of get me'usa which at most allows the harchokos of Rabbeinu Tam. I agree that if the Rabbanim collectively decide that it is time to paskan like the Rambam - I would have no problem accepting that. But they haven't Regarding gittin it is very problematic saying that Rackman view is legitimate but so are those who hold his gittin are no good. As Rabbi Gartner has written a difficult to obtain get has negative side effects but so does an easy get.

    ReplyDelete
  55. R Tzadok- I was attributing the latter part to daas torah not to you.
    Let me ask you a simple quistion.
    what do you think Hashem prefers, for a man to enjoy a healthy sexual outlet by masturbating, or for a man to enjoy watching child porn, without zerah levatalah?
    I hope you proove me wrong, and answer that obviously Hashem prefers masturbation, infinitly more, then someone who enjoys watching child porn.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 7:34 AM

    Most poskim ruled that he is rodef simply for the damage and destruction he causes in the child's life. Aside from that, even if we assume that he simply looked at the images wihtout any physical act, at least from a Sephardi perspective, he transgressed numerous halakhot.

    Then there is the simple moral turpitude from a Rabbi. We give a Rav respect because he is an embodiment of Torah. When a Rav behaves this way he shames all of Torah, which of course is a Chilul HaShem, unfortunately that word has been bandied about so much it has lost nearly all of it's value.

    Honestly that he has done wrong, that he is on the wrong side of both halakha and Jewish ethics should be a no brainer. That we are arguing this... Well it simply means that Rav Eidensohn will be in the business of educating about the severity of sexual abuse for a long time to come.

    ReplyDelete
  57. In my view, it is a big problem that you have to use the dreh of "rodef" and "pikuach nefesh" to prosecute child abusers. Child abuse should be prosecuted even if it caused no suicides, simply because it is a horrendous crime.

    No sane judicial system will extend the notion of "legitimate defense" or "rodef" to cases where there is not imminent threat to life. The Rabin assassination showed what happens when uninspired Rabbis overextend the use the term of "rodef". So, fundamentally, I do not think it is a good idea to place prosecution of child abusers under the category of "rodef".

    As to fighting get extortion, you will never get all rabbis to agree, but I don't see why obscurantist, immoral fundamentalists should have the high ground on this question.

    ReplyDelete
  58. aeiou - on this we have some agreement in theory. Jpwever ot is clear that child abuse was not viewed as harmful until recently. It is also apparent that as one child abuse activist told me - about 50% of the kids have no major permanent damage. It is conceivable that we are talking about an act which until recently was in fact not pikuach nefesh and did not justify the term rodef. it was just disgusting and immoral - like a person undressing in public or being a peeping tom. If we take away the pikuach nefesh and psychological harm - what punishment would be appropriate?


    Regarding the issue of gittin. Providing a get on demand is also problematic. I am not sure what is worse - especially for children - to have parents who dissolve the marriage because they bored or stuck in a marriage that they need to work hard to try to make it bearable. The obvious issue is understanding why marriages are failing and to try to change that.



    In sum - In either case - there is a halachic reality which is not going to change just because from our perspective we think we can create a better halachic system. If you were G-d I understand that you would have written a different Torah but since you aren't we must live with what we have. In addition we have the law of unintended consequences when we make changes.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 1:14 PM

    what do you think Hashem prefers

    HaShem is not a man that he has preferences. Preference would indicate change, and HaShem does not change.

    Both are wrong in their own right.

    for a man to enjoy a healthy sexual outlet by masturbating

    Who says such a thing is healthy?

    Let me rephrase your question in terms that are more fitting regarding the view of traditional Judaism.

    What do you think Hasshem preferes, for a man to enjoy a healthy violence outlet through self cutting and suicide attempts, or for a man to enjoying watching others be harmed?

    Now we see the actual absurdity of the question. Neither are acceptable. One is not a substitute for the other, they both represent deep seated issues of their own.

    ReplyDelete
  60. You, too, would have written the torah differently, (daughters inheriting equal parts) so don't push this on me.

    the torah advocates divorce on a whim - just that the whim has to come form the husband. So don't try and tell me that the torah advocates a "stable (monogamous?) family". the torah advocates a polygamous family where the wife has to shut up and suffer quietly, or else she will be thrown out on the street without resources (daughters don't inherit, there is no obligation of mezonot for divorcee daughters or sisters, the husband can keep his wife's revenues, and if she initiates divorce she will not obtain the sum stated in the ketuba, since this makes her a "moredes"), and she will loose her children.

    So far for the stability of family according to the torah.

    But I am even more shocked by the opinion you expressed here - considering that among the hareidi crowd, you are already the one who advocates against child abuse:

    "It is also apparent that - as one child abuse activist told me - about
    50% of the kids have no major permanent damage."
    I am very pleased to learn that 50% of abused children are resilient - all the better for them... But do you think it is OK that the other 50% were left to suffer until now, and no-one heard their pleas?
    "It is conceivable that
    we are talking about an act which until recently was in fact not pikuach
    nefesh and did not justify the term rodef"
    As I told you, I don't find the dreh with rodef and pikuach nefesh very convincing. But if you meant to say, as you expressed on this blog in the past, that child sexual abuse did not harm in other societies, I think you are completely wrong. It did harm - and the victims had no way out whatsoever, because society and law condoned pedophilia when it happened in the framework of marriage.

    "it was just disgusting and immoral - like a person undressing in public
    or being a peeping tom."
    No, it was not just disgusting and immoral - it harmed human beings. Again, I am shocked at how cavalierly you take this issue... And compared to other hareidim you are the one who takes it seriously...

    "If we take away the pikuach nefesh and
    psychological harm - what punishment would be appropriate?"

    I think that appropriate compensation for all the damage done is paramount. So I think all the offender's revenues should go to the victim until adequate compensation is reached. If these funds are insufficient, the state should forward the money and claim it back from the offender, so that the offender will be in debt all his life. And he should be kept from re-offending.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 1:31 PM

    While I am sure some muppet is going to come along and try to argue this point, what Waldman did was very much wrong according to halakha.

    Regarding your earlier question of a child bride generally speaking it is forbidden to take a child bride:
    EH"E 1:3 and 23:1

    ReplyDelete
  62. aeiou - it appears that their is an unbridgable difference betwen us in that I accept the Torah as Divineily given with the understanding that it is to be observed according to the directives and understanding of Rabbis who have the Divine mandate of creating rabbinic legislation and even at time the ability to temporarily abrograte laws. In other words I view the Torah as I do the laws of physics - they are reality. You apparently don't. The unmodified Torah laws worked for certain societies. When and where they didn't work there were modification produced by Chazal and later authorities.

    You seem to understand rabbinic legislation and showing that Torah was imperfective (chas v'shalom!).


    You don't provide any evidence for your view on child abuse - so we are simply talking passed each other on that topic.


    Regarding compensation - how do you measure damage done? It is nice that you want to bankrupt the abuser for life - but you offer no justification You also want that he be kept from re-offending but offer not mechanism. Why not castration or life imprisonment? Why not this punishment for rapists? Why is the crime that Madoff pulled off not as signifcant? What if a person is bullied and abused psychologically and physically - but not sexually. Shouldn't his abuser get the same treatment?


    In sum you are acting as an oracle but really not explaining yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  63. So we both agree that the torah has to be adapted to society and that
    our sense of morality is driven as much by the surrounding culture as
    by the torah.

    I think there is some contradiction between what is sold as "meta-values" of the torah, like chessed, rachamim, etc. and torah legislation (like the case of a mamzer, or an Aguna (in the sense of wife whose husband disappeared), etc.)

    So it is true that the sages have tried to overcome those contradicitons as best they could (like not outing a mamzer, etc.). I just wonder why you fight those tentatives tooth and nail when they happen in the present, but you are quite happy to accept them when they happend in the past (like the ban of Rabbi Gershon).

    ReplyDelete
  64. aeiou - what you see as agreement is in fact just a superficial resemblance. I view and Torah and Chazal and Rishonim as a organic unit that manifests itself differently at different times and places - but not arbitarily and not simply pragmatic. There is concern for the intent of the author - i.e., G-d. You seem to view the Torah as defective and in need of a repair job which is done in a way to try and make it not look like and adhoc approach and I don't get any sense that you consider G-d relevant to this process. Mamzer is a good example.



    It is easy to view things in retrospect as a done deal and since it happened it must have been the Divine Will. In contrast changing things for the future offers no such assurance that they are being handled properly. In general throughout Jewish history changes have always been fought. Chassidim, Shulchan Aruch, women's education. Because sometimes the changes are wrong such as Reform Judaism, Shabtzai Tzvi, Jesus.

    ReplyDelete
  65. "since it happened it must have been the Divine Will. In contrast
    changing things for the future offers no such assurance that they are
    being handled properly."

    That's circular reasoning. Things are in effect now because they have been accepted in the past. Whether this was a good idea or not - we don't really know.

    What would shabbat look like if switching electricity on and off had been permitted some 120 years ago? Quite a strong fraction of rabbis wanted to allow it. Shabbat would not be what it is now. But it would also be considered authentic judaism.

    Is it better or worse that we have it the way we have it? We don't really know.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Are you telling me you would be just as upset if u wallked in on your son masturbating as you would if you walked in on your son trying to kill himself?
    It is tragic that you are even able to write such things.
    I dont think me, or anyone would be able to get you to think any diffrently.
    Because it is a fundamental belief of yours that masturbation is extremely harmful and perverse.
    you believe this because of how the zohor demonizes it.
    Just as I will never be able to convince some people that the world is more then 6000 years old, or that I dont need jesus to die for my sins.

    I just beg you not to view you childrens masturbation, which will be inevitable, as it is with healthy males, as them watching child porn, or trying to hang themselves in their room. It wil destroy them.

    ReplyDelete
  67. The laws are subject to discretion as you know. Generally federal authorities, when they want to get someone have much more resources and willpower to do so then does the state. This is why it can be better to murder someone (a state crime) then to kidnap them ( a federal crime). If you can reduce murder to second degree or manslaughter it can go down to 10 years, and kidnapping remains life.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 27, 2014 at 9:43 PM

    I just beg you not to view you childrens masturbation, which will be inevitable, as it is with healthy males,

    I'm sorry but this statement is simply false.

    Are you telling me you would be just as upset if u wallked in on your son masturbating as you would if you walked in on your son trying to kill himself?

    Again you are conflating two issues. Let's not conflate various forms of harmful behaviors.

    My level of upset is not important to the conversation, but it is absurd for you to assume that attempted suicide and masturbation could even be intermixed. This is why in my analogy I was using violence to self and others... I didn't mix the two.

    Will I be disturbed if my son knowingly decides to violate Torah... Yes of course. Will we talk about it, and it's various harmful affects both on healthy sexuality(which it does) as well on him spiritually. Yes of course. My role as a parent is to give my child truth, not secular humanist wishful thinking. Did you know that both the Kinsey Study(Male pps 507-580) and the Masters and Johnson study(sorry forget exact place) found that masturbation in men lead to shortened periods of coitous(whcih lead to greater marital strife) as well as objectification of women. So no masturbation is not a healthy activity, either spiritually as Torah tells or or psychologically as science has told us. I really don't care for pseudoscientific fuzzy headed secular humanist wishful thinking.

    And of course I would be more disturbed if I found one of my children trying to commit suicide, for a multitude of reasons, not the least of which is that a successful attempt is one that you cannot really repent from...

    However you are conflating issues. So again I pose the question to you, which do you think HaShem would prefer, that a person self-harms, or inflicts torture on another?

    The obvious answer, and the correct answer is neither both are wrong for different reasons.

    Does there really have to be a hierarchy of evil? I don't think so.

    you believe this because of how the zohor demonizes it.

    My friend it is not just the Zohar. All of Jewish literature for 3000yrs has said that. I would ask you to find me a classic Jewish source that says that masturbation is a healthy activity that should be indulged.

    Now if the worldview of mine that you are hoping to change is that Torah is truth... Then I am very much afraid that you are barking up the wrong tree.

    ReplyDelete
  69. If hypothetically speaking you knew for sure, that masturbation is a normal and healthy sexual outlet, would you tell you children this important truth?
    If you would, then we have common ground and are essentially in agreement, all we have is a machloket in the mezius. But we are fundermentaly in agreement. We both agree that the truth is important and we both want what is best for our kinderlach.

    I would certainly tell my children if hypothetically I believed that masturbation was an extremely unhealthy and psycologicaly damaging activity.

    At the end of the day if one cannot be honest with ones self because of fear of being labled a heretic by ones religious group, or being labled a religious fanatic by ones secular community, have we not forgoten what it means to be human?

    ReplyDelete
  70. Rabbi MT - I was away, now I am back.


    In short:


    1. There is no Yabia Omer which is relevant to our discussion. The one in Chelek 4 is explicitly stating that הוז"ל is NOT really חייב מיתה - i.e. he is coming to make the Issur less serious than one might think, not more serious! The one in Chelek 6 is arguing with the Chelkas Mechokek and Beis Shmuel NOT because he considers הוז"ל to be more חמור than Nidda, but rather because in principle one may not violate even an Issur דרבנן in order to save oneself from a MORE חמור Issur!
    He clearly agrees with the assumption that הוז"ל is less stringent. Go on - have a look!


    2. The Rav Pealim says that הוז"ל is a very serious Aveira. I knew that already, and nobody disputes it.


    3. Hence the Chida is the only Posek I know of who להלכה ולמעשה assumes הוז"ל to be more חמור than all other עבירות, including ביאת נדה.


    4. I did not look up Rav Hillel שליט"א's Teshuve. Perhaps in the future I will. But he is not an average Sefardi Posek, as you well know. He is primarily a Kabbalist, and his Pesakim may sometimes reflect the Kabbalistic view towards Halacha which most mainstream Poskim reject, especially when there a Machlokes between the Mekubalim and the Poskim.


    5. I feel that writing these words is not a waste of time, despite the fact that you are likely to dismiss anything I say out of hand, however clear and block-on-white it is in the sources. Nonetheless, the chance remains that you may be מודה על האמת, as you - and I - have done before. There is also a benefit to anybody else who is following this thread.


    6. The Rema and Shach you cite have zero relevance to the issue we discussed. Why don't you actually quote the words which make you think that they are saying that we pasken איסורים מבטלים זה את זה?


    Kol Tuv

    ReplyDelete
  71. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 1:12 AM

    So you want me to step into an alternate reality now? Perhaps in that alternate reality, in addition to there being an alternate science, there is an alternate Torah as well?

    Your line of reasoning has stretched into the absurd.

    At the end of the day if one cannot be honest with ones self because of fear of being labled a heretic by ones religious group, or being labled a religious fanatic by ones secular community, have we not forgoten what it means to be human?


    Really it is not about being labeled a heretic or being labeled a religious fanatic. I don't really care much for labels, most especially those that are applied by others.

    What it means to be human can be stated quite simply, it means to do the will of one's creator. I don't know if you believe in G-d or not, or if you believe that the Torah is the very word of G-d or not. I do. Thus for me there is no higher truth than the Torah, and the only way to actualize being a human being is to live Torah.

    There is a Chassishe Rebbe story I once heard from Rav Shmuel Lew, I don't remember which Rebbe it was, but it goes like this. A chassid of the Rebbe came to him and said, "I want to be like an animal. I want to be able to sleep when I want and wake when I want. I want to be able to eat what I want when I want, and I want to be able to have relations with whomever I want whenever I want." The Rebbe replied, "You already are an animal."

    Simply put the only thing that separates humans from animals is the ability to do the will of their creator, and the only way to actualize that humanity is by doing the will of the creator. The Torah is the will of the creator.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Rabbi Michael TzadokMay 28, 2014 at 1:27 AM

    Chaim
    1)You clearly need to read the Yabia omer again. You didn't understand it.

    2)He says מכל העבירות just like the Sh"A


    3) You contradict yourself becasue the Rav Pealim is a halakhic source. So the Chida cannot be the only one. Sad that the truth is becoming a casualty in this.


    4) Can you please then define what is a mainstream Sephardi posek? In this statement you have ruled out the Ben Ish Hai, the Yaskil Avdei, the Ohr L'Tzion, Rav Mordekhai Eliyahu and ironically half of Rav Ovadia's books(Hilchot Olam for example), Rav Mutzafi... and just now Rav Yaakov Hillel. In short pretty much every Sephardi Shu"T except Rav Ovadia's Yechave Daat and Yabia Omer. While I respect that what you say may reflect an Ashkenazi Derekh, it does not reflect a Sephardi one. Sephardi halakha is not restricted to two works by a single Rav.


    5) I also hoped that you would be modeh on the truth... but unfortunately you are not.

    6) Ok... so you have never learned the shita of Rema regarding issurim... I really don't have words for that.

    ReplyDelete
  73. I find Disqus very confusing. Why are there beginnings of comments in the "recent comments" widget that fail to show up anywhere else? And how come if I click on a person's name in "recent comments" it doesn't jump to their comment like it use to? And why are the newest posts sometimes at the top of the thread and sometimes below the ones they are commenting on?


    In unrelated news, I have discovered how to write with italics. Now the world is my oyster...

    ReplyDelete
  74. Now I can't find the complaint I made about disqus - and how can I respond to Rabbi MT if his comment has magically disappeared? Oy vey.

    ReplyDelete
  75. I think that I'm just going to comment by "joining the discussion" anew every time - but then that will ruin the thread.

    ReplyDelete
  76. To Rabbi MT,


    My policy of continuing the dialogue with you is to hold out and proceed with the discussion as long as your comment contains at least one point which makes sense. Your last one did not, so I hereby choose to bow out of the conversation. Bye Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  77. i really hate this this commenting format too

    ReplyDelete
  78. R Tzadok, I dont meen to rock your boat but I have chatted with with many orthodox men that enjoyed masturbation when they were single and are now happily married. And dont masturbate anymore.

    Personaly I used to masturbate before I got married, but stopped afterwards one of the reasons is that it became possible for me to observe this halacha, now that I have the ultimate form of sexual intimacy.

    I dont mean to scare you, but u really dont regret my years of masturbation, it was an integral part of my growth, and it was a healthy outlet.
    I even used to discuss masturbation when I was dating my wife! We were and still are very open with each other.

    So my quistion is really not absurd at all.

    ReplyDelete
  79. To Rabbi MT,

    My policy of continuing the dialogue with you is to hold out and proceed with the discussion as long as your comment contains at least one point which makes sense. Your last one did not, so I hereby choose to bow out of the conversation. Bye Bye.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Sorry Rabbi MT, but my allergy to incoherency prevents me from continuing to be a sounding board for your non-Halachic rants. And I believe that Rav Yitzchak שליט"א affirmed your position, as much as I believe that the Beis Shmuel, Rav Pealim, Yabia Omer etc. agree with you. Actually, you might as well claim that EVERY Posek agrees with you - why not, as long as we're playing games? I'll even provide the sources!

    ReplyDelete
  81. It seems to be settling down.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Most poskim ruled that he is rodef simply for the damage and destruction he causes in the child's life."


    Please provide a source that ANY Posek - Ashkenazi Sefardi, Chassidish, Mekubal - holds that somebody who looks at child pornography on the internet is a Rodef. If you can.

    ReplyDelete
  83. R Tzadok, you have taken your little bits of data from the studies completely out of context, i was shocked.

    But thanks for bringing up the Masters and Johnson study. you made me do some research, and they have an interesting study regarding how a lot of the crazy and silly myths regarding masturbation originated.



    and you do what the consensus of the entire scientific world is, i don't need to tell you, you could even use google.
    But i know you will say these people have such a secular bias blah,blah blah so there is no point in discussing it. if you disagree with modern science, that is your choice.
    I don't disrespect you for that, my only real concern is when harmful information is feed to kids.


    And by the way I believe the Torah is from Hashem, and that we cant even change derabonon laws.
    Good shaboss.

    ReplyDelete
  84. @Mike Stern - I am not really sure of how to react to your comments - they appear to be insane. It is inherently impossible for a frum person to subscribe to what you said and still claim he is frum. On the other hand you claim that Torah is from G-d and you can't change rabbinic laws - so you obviously claim to be frum.


    You claim that health and compassion trumps halacha. I would assume you would also say love trumps halacha. After giving validity to all the humanistic and self -centered values - there is not much left that you can claim that you subordinate yourself to G-d and his Torah as understood by the Sages. That is not even Conservative Judaism. Perhaps it is Open Orthodoxy where if you observe the mitzvos - that thoughts and actions which contradict normative halacha can be accepted.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Daas Torah. why do you put words in my mouth, and then attack them as being insane?

    I NEVER claimed that health and compassion trump halacha. Maybe you wish i was saying that so it would be easier for you to attack me.

    please quote me where i said that.

    Where did I say that if someone is a homosexual and is struggling that the halacha falls away?

    The only thing i wrote that i can think of that would lead you to your understanding was when i wrote

    "You are not saying that there is a halachic and human reality and they are both real, no we identify as a frum Jew, and our human soul falls away."



    Where did i ever say that the human reality trumps halacha?


    If I am insane for having compassion on my friend that is gay, and still accepting him as my friend, then I am happy to be insane.

    ReplyDelete
  86. again, where did i write that we can change the halacha about masturbation? I can kick and scream as much as i want to, but we simply cant change halacha.
    what is your issue?
    please be specific
    Is it because i dont want children to think they are perverts for masturbating?. is it that i want them to know that this is completely normal and natural, and will not have negative psychological effects?
    Are do you simple not like what i am saying?

    .

    ReplyDelete
  87. @Mike if I wrote the same way you did regarding adultery, incest, cheating on taxes etc etc - without the slightest expression of guilt or shame - and with claims it is natural and healthy - would you have any problem with that?


    You are saying - sorry for putting words in your mouth - "There are halachos which people have no ability to keep and in fact violating these halachos is healthy - physiologically and psychologically. Therefore when people violate these unhealhy halachos because they have no free-will regarding them - they should not be condemned or stigmatized but rather they should be shown love and compassion and understanding."


    Please get me a haskoma from your rabbi or any talmid chachom that he approves of this attitude - which is clearly not acceptable to Judaism.

    ReplyDelete
  88. @blog owner
    So you are saying that you never masturbated in your life, because the torah forbids it, and therefore you are a better Jew than Mike?

    Or are you just saying that you did masturbate (at least once in your life), but you never would admit it, contrary to Mike, and that therefore you are a better Jew than mike?

    ReplyDelete
  89. @blog owner
    You had no problem publishing Nahum's comment (see below), which clearly advocated pedophilia...

    ReplyDelete
  90. "Please get me a haskoma from your rabbi or any talmid chachom that he approves of this attitude - which is clearly not acceptable to Judaism"


    Well, here we go again with problem of conflicting moral values and conflicting priorities in condemnation.


    I think it is more important to condemn child abuse or slavery or spousal rape than to condemn masturbation. Some rabbanim, on the other hand, have other priorities. They are quite complacent for spousal rape and child abuse, but make a point in speaking out quite frequently against masturbation.

    ReplyDelete
  91. which quote are you talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  92. @daas Torah regarding your quistion if I would have a problem with you claiming that your list of avaroes is natual and healthy, I would have a problem with that because alot of those things are not natural and I dont think any are healthy.

    Regarding your summery of my views what part do you regard as unacceptable, that some people might not have free choice regarding certain halachos? or that these actions can be healthy, either physically or psycologicaly? or that we should have compassion on these people?
    Or is it all of those three?

    ReplyDelete
  93. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 1, 2014 at 7:02 AM

    Mike you are not being entirely honest in your debate. You said:
    I dont mean to scare you, but u really dont regret my years of masturbation, it was an integral part of my growth, and it was a healthy outlet.I even used to discuss masturbation when I was dating my wife! We were and still are very open with each other.
    Which violates a number of mitzvot, both Rabbnic and D'oraitta. But then you write:
    And by the way I believe the Torah is from Hashem, and that we cant even change derabonon laws.
    While you may not feel they can be abolished your actions and words clearly indicate that you feel that they can be abrogated at one's personal discretion.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Rabbi Michael TzadokJune 1, 2014 at 7:18 AM

    Against my better judgement:
    I think it is more important to condemn child abuse

    Already done and continuing. You can buy the book:
    http://astore.amazon.com/daator-20%20%20

    or slavery
    Jews no longer own slaves. If they did own slaves and treated against halakha then of course there would be condemnation, but Jews no longer own slaves so condemning a non-existent practice seems a bit odd.

    or spousal rape than to condemn masturbation.

    Already done... Once again you can buy the book.

    However why are we giving moral weight to one mitzvah over another? And how do you define what is important? Is it by your secular humanistic values or is it by Torah?


    You see the imbalance in speeches and so forth as complacency. But how many Rabbis have you spoken to regarding the subjects? See most Rabbis that I have spoken to about child abuse see it as something that is simply unthinkably evil. They don't need to tell the average congregant/kollel avereich not to partake in such things... That is plain to the sight, and those that do are consider rodefim, and able to be prosecuted.
    Spousal rape is likewise against halakha and is dealt with appropriately. To the point that a woman's husband can be forced to give her a Get(at least under Sephardi Halakhah and Rabbinut).
    Masturbation however is not so plainly evil. Thus Rabbanim feel the need to speak out against such practices so that people will know the severity of their actions and the harm they are causing themselves psychologically and spiritually.

    ReplyDelete
  95. @Mike you are in complete denial. As I said find any religious authority who views your pronouncement as acceptable. You can't on the one hand acknowledge violating halacha and praising sin as being healthy and at the same time say you don't feel hallacha - even rabbinic - can be violated

    ReplyDelete
  96. take lashon hara: everyone does it, but it violates halacha. On the other hand, lashon hara is used, especially in very frum circles, to keep members in line. (Everyone is afraid at "what will the neighbours say" "it could hurt my/my children's shidduch prospects). So, practically spekaing, lashon hara, despite being forbidden, fulfills a purpose in society, and (rabbinical) authorities, while preaching against lashon hara, use the effects of lashon hara.


    I suppose that masturbation belongs to this category. Yes, halacha forbids it, but everyone does it (by the way, I received no statement, neither from the blog author, nor from Michael Tzadok, that they never practiced it in their life.)


    So, as far as I can see, both Michael Tzadok and the blog author to not say that they are better than Mike Stern because they never in their life practiced masturbation. The difference is just that they do not admit to it, so they feel they can point fingers.


    This is the basis of religious hypocrisy. People preach one thing, but do something else, and point fingers at those people who are honest enough to admit that they do what the preachers do in secret.

    ReplyDelete
  97. @daas Torah, I think you need calm down. I accept your apology,for putting words in my mouth, but it is very difficuct to have a civilised conversation with someone that keeps attacking, and throwing out accusations instead of just arguing your point.

    So your issue is my view that sin can sometimes be healthy.
    Will you acknowledge that if a starving person eats non kosher food with lots of vitamins and protein that that food is physically healthy? Is so conceptually why cant some sins be psycologicaly healthy?

    ReplyDelete
  98. R Tzadok, I dont regret my masturbation because I know that I would be a much worse off if I didn't.
    I would have slept around like my friends. Or other serious issues I dont need to go into details.
    So I dont regret masturbating because I dont regret not doing worse sins and I dont regret masturbation because I dont regret not messing up my sexuality for my marrage.

    ReplyDelete
  99. @MIke there is no need to "calm down" or "apologize" for my accurate description of your views. You lack an elementary understading of the concept of sin. So cut out the debate tactics and pay attention to what I and Rabbi Tzadok have said to you.

    Your mistaken understanding is that a sin is only wrong if it is unhealthy. Thus any sin which promotes health and growth - is not to be condemned.

    Let me try one more time. A sin is prohibited to do even if it is healthy. There are situations - which - have been carefully described in the halachic literature - in which a normally prohibited behavior is permitted and sometimes required. Calling a doctor on Shabbos to save a life or eating unkosher to avoid dying. BUT THERE IS NO HETER TO SIN BECAUSE IT IS HEALTHY.
    There are adulterous or incestous relations which might be healthy - but they are still prohibited. Pedophilia was considered healthy in Greece. However See Sanhedrin 75a where it is was poskened that a man should rather die rather than have improper sexual relations. I assume your gemora is missing those pages?!

    A person not only has to know that sin is wrong - he needs to avoiding sinning. If he in fact sins he needs to feel bad about sinning and do teshuva. You have mentioned nothing about feeling shame for sinning or doing teshuva - which involves a commitment not to sin again.

    Homosexual relations can be healthy - it is still prohibited. Stealing can be healthy. Nonetheless sin is to stopped, is to be condemned by the mitzva of chastisment. And sin must be repented.

    In short your reasoning has nothing at all to do with Torah and halacha. You made it up yourself. that is why I challenged you to find one rabbi who agrees with you. You are repeatedly describing principles of your own religion - it is not Torah!!

    It is rather bizarre that you think that what your saying makes sense - you have absolutely nothing to justify your position. In fact with your understanding all sins should be ignored if they can be shown to be beneficial and the corrolary is that all mitzvos should be avoided if they can be shown to be detrimental. Therefore you can readily rationalize do many prohibited activities and not doing required activities - because of the single mediating princple of health. you are wrong.

    If you can not produce any rabbi who agrees with you - then I am not publishing anymore of your comments on this topic.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Firstly at the end of this comment I will
    post a link to an article by your friend, Dr Benzion Sorotzkin, that basically
    sums up my attitude to sin and growth. Therefore you can post my comment.

    Secondly, you are seriously
    misunderstanding me, I read through my comments and I am not sure how you think
    I am saying what you claim I am saying.


    “Your mistaken understanding is that a sin
    is only wrong if it is unhealthy” No, if a sin is healthy it is still wrong. Even if the modern mental health world would claim that it is even healthy to masturbate in marriage (I think they do claim this) I would still not
    masturbate, because it is against halacha. But this does not mean that masturbation is as serious as child porn. This is what disturbed me about R
    tzadoks comments.

    “BUT THERE IS NO HETER TO SIN SIMPLY
    BECAUSE IT IS HEALTHY” I agree! I NEVER said otherwise.

    What I am saying is that people have to be
    realistically honest with themselves regarding what they are capable of at various stages of their lives. In a similar way, a baal teshuva from a completely secular background can’t start keeping the entire Torah all at once, because he will break.

    I think your real issue is the fact that I don’t feel guilty for masturbating when I was single. When I was single I had a chat with dr Sorotzkin, I basically told him that It was having a very bad effect on me, struggling not to masturbate and feeling guilty about it. I told him that I decide to masturbate twice a week and not feel at all guilty about it. He agreed that this was the right approach for me. Even though he disagreed
    regarding the healthy effects of masturbation. (he did not attack me for regarding masturbation as psychologically healthy, nor did he call me insane.)

    Perhaps there are those that can overcome
    masturbation when single,good for them! But must we condemn and reject those that feel that they cant?

    Here is a link to an article by Dr Sorotzkin That pretty much sums up my views. http://www.drsorotzkin.com/pdf/PERFECTION-AND-JUDIASM.pdf

    ReplyDelete
  101. @Mike you are fighting a number of battles at the same time.First of all I never called you insane - I said what you said was insane. Secondly the advice you give to an individual is not necessarily to be taken as public policy - which is what you seem to be doing. 3) I would seriously doubt whether Dr. Sorotzkin would agree with what you said. Nowhere in his ariticle does he articulate your views. There is a major difference between what advice you give someone who is incapacitated by guilt and one who is engaging in an activity because "everyone does it" and "it's healthy" and "it's really hard to stop so perhaps it isn't within my point of free-will"

    For example on this topic he quotes the Shaloh

    Those chasidim (stringent ones) who are stringent and state that there is no correcting this sin... they are the ones who induce an increase of sinning among us, and cause people to distance themselves from Hashem, since the sinner, when he hears that there is no repentance for this sin will abandon all attempts to improve himself. [These chasidim ] cause the Shechinah to go into golus and rather than be calledchasidim (stringent ones) should more properly be called “chaseirim” (lacking ones) and their punishment will be very severe.

    He is saying don't go to an extreme of guilt and hopelessness - because there are ways of atonement such as Torah study. I wasn't talking about an extreme - I was simply saying there has to be an acknowledged that sin was committed,a sense of shame and efforts to make atonement and avoid sinning in the future. I never said there was no atonement - just that there is a need to make atonement.

    I suggest you give your rabbi your writings and ask if he thinks it appropriate. I also suggest you reread your statements again as well as Dr. Sorotzkin's article.

    ReplyDelete
  102. BE CAREFUL HERE NOBODY CAN HELP YOU HERE OR EVEN SUGGEST HOW YOU CAN GET YOUR EX OR LOVE BACK,ANY TESTIMONIES OF MOST SPELL CASTER HERE MUST BE IGNORE.BECAUSE MOST OF THEM ARE SCAM I MEAN REAL SCAM WHICH I WAS A VICTIM AND I GOT RIPPED OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS BECAUSE I WAS SO ANXIOUS TO GET MY WIFE BACK AFTER SHE LEFT ME FOR OVER 2 YEARS WITH MY 7 YEARS OLD SON JERRY,I HAVE APPLIED TO 7 DIFFERENT SPELL CASTER HERE AND ALL TO NO AVAIL THEY ALL ASK FOR SAME THING SEND YOUR NAME YOUR EX NAME ADDRESS AND PICTURE PHONE NUMBER ETC WHICH I DID OVER AND OVER AGAIN AND MOST OF THEM WERE FROM WEST AFRICA UNTIL ISAW A POST ABOUT MAMA ANITA SPELL AND I DECIDED TO GAVE HER MY LAST TRAIL.SHE ASK ME FOUR THINGS MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND $180 AND SAID MY EX WILL COME BACK IN 24HOURS, I HAVE PAID OVER $3000 ON SPELL CASTING AND COURIER AND NOTHING HAVE WORK FOR ME AFTER 3 DAYS I WAS THINKING ABOUT HOW MUCH I HAVE LOST SO FAR SO I SAID LET ME GIVE HER A TRY SO I CALLED HER AGAIN AND SEND MY REAL NAME,MY EX AND MY EX MOTHER NAME AND THE $180 BECAUSE I SWEAR IT WAS MY LAST TRY SO I WAS WAITING AS SHE TOLD ME TO WAIT TILL NEXT DAY AND I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT BECAUSE I REALLY LOVE MY WIFE AND WANT HER BACK AT 9PM THAT DAY I SAW MY WIFE ON LINE ON FACE BOOK AND SHE SAID HI AT FIRST I WAS SHOCK BECAUSE SHE NEVER TALK WITH ME FOR THE PAST A YEAR AND 9 MONTH NOW I DID NOT REPLY AGAIN SHE SAID ARE YOU THERE? I QUICKLY REPLY YES AND SHE SAID CAN WE SEE TOMORROW I SAID YES AND SHE WENT OFF-LINE I WAS CONFUSED I TRY TO CHAT HER AGAIN BUT SHE WAS NO MORE ON LINE I COULD NOT SLEEP THAT NIGHT AS I WAS WONDERING WHAT SHE IS GOING TO SAY, BY 7.AM THE NEXT MORNING SHE GAVE ME A MISS CALL I DECIDED NOT TO CALL BACK AS I WAS STILL ON SHOCK AGAIN SHE CALL AND I PICK SHE SAID CAN WE SEE AFTER WORK TODAY I SAID YES SO SHE END THE CALL IMMEDIATELY I GOT OFF WORK SHE CALL ME AND WE MEET AND NOW WE ARE BACK AGAIN I CALL MAMA ANITA THE NEXT DAY THANKING HER FOR WHAT SHE HAS DONE IN FACT I STILL CALL HER AND THANK HER AS MY LIFE WAS NOT COMPLETE WITHOUT MY WIFE PLEASE BE CAREFUL HERE I HAVE BEEN SCAM THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS IF YOU WANT A TRUE LOVE SPELL THEN CONTACT MAMA ANITA (mama.anitatruelovespell@gmail.com)

    ReplyDelete

ANONYMOUS COMMENTS WILL NOT BE POSTED!
please use either your real name or a pseudonym.