You may post it if you wish K”T
The Gateshead Rav's recent Shabbos Drosho included criticism regarding how child abuse has been dealt with in the Jewish community.
Avos (1:14) HE [ALSO] USED TO SAY: IF I AM NOT FOR MYSELF, WHO IS FOR ME, BUT IF I AM FOR MY OWN SELF [ONLY], WHAT AM I, AND IF NOT NOW, WHEN?
משנה מסכת אבות )פרק א:יד): הוא היה אומר, אם אין אני לי, מי לי. וכשאני לעצמי, מה אני. ואם לא עכשיו, אימתי:
The Chossid Ya'avetz writes that there are three ingredients required for someone to have an עליה רוחניות- a spiritual improvement. Firstly a person must recognise the value of being a better person. Secondly a person will only feel the urge to climb if he is not content with his current level. Finally if a person wants to "shteig", he will only do so if he realises the significance of the present.
These are the lessons of our Mishnah – אם אין אני לי- if I don't appreciate the value of becoming better, then I can't be convinced to improve. וכשאני לעצמי - if I appreciate a higher level yet are content with where I am now – מה אני - what chance do I ever have of becoming better. ואם לא עכשיו אימתי - If I cannot grasp the moment now- I will never.
The Chofetz Chaim writes that if one wants to succeed in a financial sense then he has to follow the golden rule of "trying to make the greatest reward whilst using the least effort". This lesson can be achieved primarily in one of three ways. Firstly one can have employees to work on his behalf. In that way the workers will toil and the owner will reap the profit. A second option would be to find work in a lucrative setting where only a few hours of work could provide a serious income. The diamond trade could be an example of this. Then there is a third way to achieve this and that is to work in an industry which is season-dependent. In this way the hard work of a few months can be a great pay-off for the rest of the year. Selling Esrogim could be such an example.
That is all well and good when it comes to earning a livelihood, but when it comes to spiritual matters, says the Chofetz Chaim, the opposite is true. A person's spiritual level is judged by his efforts and not by achievements and our Mishnah can be learnt as a homily in order to reinforce this idea.
אם אין אני לי מי לי- If I don't work for myself, then who will work for me? With our Avoida, we can't ask others to fill in for ourselves. We can't have an employee wearing Tefillin and have Yiras Shamayim on our behalf.
Next, אם אני לעצמי מה אני - If I work only for myself for a most of the day, then what am I?
Finally, ואם לא עכשיו אימתי - If I don't work the whole year, if there are times of the year that I'm not working on the עכשיו then when will I work for the "now"? Avoidas Hashem is an all-year-round commitment. It can't be left for just a set period in the year.
Though if we were to understand the Mishna according to its "Pshat" we learn that we need to work with a two-fold approach. Firstly we can't live as hermits; אם אין אני לי מי לי- we can't rely on others to fill in those communal gaps. We can't rely on others to work on our behalf. Yet on the other hand; אם אני לעצמי מה אני - if we try to take on the communal burden alone then we will never achieve anything either. We need to focus on how to bring those two themes to a point of harmony, to a balance of priorities, and finally to realise that communal work can only ever be achieved by those who have an appreciation to the value of time; those who know and live the . ואם לא עכשיו אימתי
Reb Ahron of Karlin (in Beis Ahron) writes: ואם לא עכשיו אימתי?- if one doesn't realise now that he has an עכשיו then when will one ever realise the value of now?
There is a Gemora [Brochos 5a] that writes: A man should always incite the good impulse [in his soul]2 to fight against the evil impulse. For it is written: Tremble and sin not. If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him study the Torah. For it is written: ‘Commune with your own heart. If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him recite the Shema’. For it is written: ‘Upon your bed’. If he subdues it, well and good. If not, let him remind himself of the day of death.
If one finds himself in the grip of the Yetser Hora and cannot extricate himself with either the Yetser Hatov, learning Torah or reading the Krias Shema, then one should remind oneself that eventually we will all die.
A chossid who learnt this approached the lmrei Emes and asked, what value does this tactic have? If a young person feels enslaved to his Yetser Hora, what will it help to remind him of the day he will die? He is so far away and can't relate to the day of his death?
The lmrei Emes responded, "The Gemora's intention was never that a person should try and remember the day of his death, rather he should realise the death of "today". Today's opportunities will only ever come once and he will never regain that. "Der Tag starbtheint", It is "today" that is "dying". The Gemora is telling us to grab the opportunities that are brought today.
This week a judge passed sentence over a frum looking individual and sent him to jail for over 13 years for molesting children. It is not my intention to speak specifically about this case, rather to raise questions which are perhaps more general in nature.
Firstly, how did our society allow such a person to be in contact with children for so many years? How was such an individual allowed to coast from institution to institution despite his known background? His behaviour wasn't a secret?!
Was he allowed to continue in his job because he came from a respected family? We have to remember that Esov was raised in the home of Yitzchok and Rivka and nevertheless he became the Esov that he was. That's not a statement about his parents; he was showing "atrisk" signs even in his mother's womb.
So too with this individual, it is worth looking at him through the words of Reb Moshe Sternbuch who said ער איז מער חולה ווי רשע- "he's more sick than wicked". Yet that doesn't vindicate the silence of the community and that is why we ask, "How were our children left for hefker]"
Secondly, we have to wonder, how is it that there are those who err so much as to provide unlimited support to child molesters and won't instead help the victims. How is it that there are unlimited funds to aid the perpetrator and yet the victims struggle to get help for expensive therapy? Not only that, but the victims suffer twice as the offender tries to bully them into silence. How have we stood by and watched this double whammy? These are broken souls which have been hit twice.
You should know that if a Rov is attacked in such a way, it may hurt him and his family, it may harm a community, but a rov is a healthy individual living with a lot of self-confidence, yet these children are broken people. How has it been okay for us to ignore their plight? Is this the behaviour of people who are supposed to be nvron ?רחמנים ביישנים וגומלי חסדים
This doesn't mean that we are attacking specific people; individuals. For if we have an issue about individuals we admonish them in private, and not in public. Furthermore, if we query the behaviour of individuals, we end up with individual answers; Reuven doesn't understand, Shimon is very opinionated, Levi has things to hide about himself, etc. Rather this is a question directed to the public; to the whole community - how is it that we have neglected, how is it that we have kept quiet for something that has been known for so long?
It is most probably because we have no idea what damage is done when children are abused. We have to educate ourselves to understand the pain of these children. The abuse that they have suffered gnaws at them from every direction. Many times these children harm themselves or take their own lives. It can affect their mental state or their married lives even after many years. And of course it affects their spiritual lives too, especially if the molester is in the guise of a frum person.
A recent study in the USA placed child abuse as the single biggest cause for people going "off-the-derech" and despite all of this, over the past few months I have received many letters from victims who all seem to have a similar refrain: "Granted the molester is sick, but what about the community? Do those in charge not care?"
Moirai Veraboisai, it's time that we say "Enough!" It's time to end the silence. It is time that we said that no longer will we leave the next generation for hefker, for the sake of misguided values.
The first thing we have to say is אם אין אני לי מי לי- we have the responsibility for our own families; we should be aware of where our children are and with whom they are socialising.
Then we have to learn וכשאני לעצמי מה אני- if we keep information to ourselves - what do we gain? We must learn how to handle and transfer information.
Almost all cases of molestations discussed on this blog occurred in private.
ReplyDeleteSo a simple start to remedy things is to set up a system where children are generally not in private with adults. And when a child is in private with an adult, such as a child who is being watched when the child's parents go out for the evening, a record should be kept of this contact.
Adults in positions of dealing with children should not resent such record keeping responsibilities. They should welcome the extra work. Because people who recognize the threat to the community from molesters know that by being vigilant they are saving lives.
I get nowhere with making suggestions like this. And I finally figured out why I get nowhere. In my experience, it's because some people like to talk about what's out of order, but they won't lift a finger to actually do anything about it.
How do these lazy people get to the point where they can pinpoint what's broken but will do absolutely zero to change it? I think it has to do with the emphasis in some Yeshivas on discouraging people from working.
As the Gateshead Rav said in the name of the Chofetz Chaim: work is about results, learning is about effort. So someone immersed only in learning only knows a life of effort. So he thinks the more he talks the more he's effecting change.
But to stop molestation we have to mean business.
I am not sure what he is talking about, but frankly, I don't understand why we need derashos.
ReplyDeleteThe gadol ha dor, R. Elyashiv zt"l,, gave a psak. If there are raglayim le davar -- if there is some real basis to believe abuse has taken place, not just a rumor -- you are OBLIGATED to go to the authorities. There is no room here to be machmir, because failure to go violates the deoraysa of lo saamod al dam reiecha. You are allowing a rodef to continue to be rodef, if not this child, then others. Period.
@Bored lawyer - you are 100A% correct. He is not adding anything new to the halachic understanding. The chidush is that major community rabbis are finally acknowledging that which is obvious to anyone familiar with the issue of child abuse.
ReplyDeleteunfortunately it is still requires great courage to state the obvious if you are a rabbi or anyone else who is dependent on the community.
@Berel - you can find them in my vol II of Child and Domestic Abuse.
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that people don't trust a psak because after all there are different ways to understand it. Perhaps you remember when the Aguda was claiming that only a rabbi can decide whether there is raglayim ldavar and that mandatory reporting laws don't conflict with a psak that one always must go to a rav and if he says not to report you don't report.
The critical issue is whether child abuse is viewed as pikuach nefesh and the abuser as a rodef.
There are still people who claim that pikuach nefesh and rodef are not relevant for child abuse. There are still people who claim that the problem of moser outweighs the issue of child abuse and that the colleteral damage and punishment not in accord with Torah laws make it impossible to call the police for abuse.
Bottom line all these issues are discussed in my Child and Domestic Books
No more babysitters?
ReplyDeleteAs is well known, the Gateshead Rabbonus is considered by some as the only true Rabbonus around nowadays. Please convey to Rav Zimmerman that the general community and the victims would beg him and his community to set up some sort of pilot program, perhaps on the lines of JO's suggestions, as a model for everyone else; to strike the best balance between protection and intrusiveness, at the best price, in consultation with whoever the experts are. People in Gateshead who deal with children shouldn't be insulted or feel suspect, or feel that things are too excessive. It's just that we have to get something started (and eventually continue globally) to remedy this burning issue, and they can have the incredible merit of being the Nachshonim.
ReplyDeleteBabysitting is good.
ReplyDeleteBabysiiters will be trained to document their babysitting. We have universal education for children. They learn to read and write. Let's put this training to work. A girl who babysits will get in the habit of keeping scrupulous records of her time spent with her charges. Records which later she will enter into an online database accessible by the Rav of the community, and other authorized users. (The children learn about technology, also, in schools.)
Then, when this hypothetical girl is eleven years old and finds herself in isolation with a teacher at her school, she will find it strange the teacher hasn't taken out his journal and noted the time and reason for the meeting.
"Is it really OK for us to be together like you suggest? Why aren't you making a record? I was taught a child is never to be in isolation with an adult without a record being made! I must leave immediately!!"
There are things we can all do to move this record keeping idea forward. And it's not really my idea. I fashioned it after the teachings of the Ramchal in his Sefer Mesilas Yesharim.
ReplyDeleteI carry a journal around with me to keep an ongoing Cheshbon Hanefesh. To make a regular reckoning of my activities the way great traders make reckonings of their transactions.
I find that the kind of pen and ink and paper I use can greatly facilitate or hinder the process of record keeping and I blog about it.
Strange as it may seem, if we create a global journaling movement then we can collectively combat molestation.
I suspect that there was a part of Rabbi Barry Freundel that was as shocked as the rest of us to learn of the extent of his wrongdoing. He apparently kept meticulous records of the videos he took, but I would wager he compartmentalized that part of his life away from other aspects of his being.
And that is probably true of many who were caught and exposed and whose exploits have found their way into posts and comments on this blog.
A journal can be brutal. Because the persona who writes in the journal in the morning may not be the same persona who reads the journal in the evening. Journaling is an opportunity to re-integrate ourselves and distance ourselves from sin.
And once it becomes normal for people to find each other carrying a journal and writing in it, it will be a short step towards requiring people to document their contact with children.
I feel some of the commentators on this page are no longer in touch with reality. If someone who is a respected and authoritative figure wanted to be malicious, they would be able to convince any potential victim "that there is no need to record the encounter". Even if the meeting was recorded, it would be totally ineffective against a regime of persecution against victims, their families and other witnesses.
ReplyDeleteI think there is a lack of acknowledgement that there are people who have very dangerous intentions towards children, are living amongst chareidi communities and are often respected in those circles.
@Joseph Orlow do you honestly think Tordos Grynhaus would never have touched any children had his victims made notes of every visit???
I agree that more could be done to prevent abuse of children but it will never be eliminated. We also need to ensure there is an effective way to deal with perpetrators. There is no other safe option than to put Grynhaus and other similar offenders behind bars.
Nothing can be done to address the huge problem of child abuse in Chareidi communities until it gets talked about which is what Rabbi Zimmerman is trying to do. No one in the history of diseases has ever cured someone without a diagnosis.
I fail to understand why people here are rejecting the words of one of their most respected Rabbonim, who speaks so much sense?
@Curious - diagnosis is not needed to cure someone. It happens all the time.Going to a doctor and being told it is a virus or an infection - is not a diagnosis. Most of psychotherapeutic cures - occurs without benefit of a diagnosis.
ReplyDeleteI once asked my Psych Testing Prof - why he was advocating using tests for diagnosis which were generally inaccurate and definitely not related to treatment. He said "well you've got to call it something!"
In general it is enough to be aware something is wrong. My recent post which reported that teaching on the present curies as well if not better than CBT is an example. Changing relationships, doing something different etc until the problem, or disease stops - is sufficient
What is our Old Mesorah of klal yisroel regarding sexual assault/abuse.How was it decided in the previous generations? and also in pre war Europe?
ReplyDeleteIn Eretz Yisroel During the Mandate ? how about Reb Shmul Salant in Jerusalem ? The Maril Diskin ZL I'm sure there were Abusers in those days too, How were they dealt with? Were they simply Handed over to the Secular Government ? Any tshuvos about this ?
When is it a Rodef ? for how many years is it a Rodef?
How about Reb Shlomo Zalman being friendly to Mordowits How about like in this current case when it was already ten years since the assault Is that also considered a Rodef?
I think the Manchester Judge said not, as published So what is the true Way in these thorny questions ?
What did Reb Chaim Ozer pasken /the holy Chofets Chaim the Chasam Sofer ? the Satmer Rov ? Re Aharon Kotler and the Chazon Ish The BriskerRov?
Pedophiles are nothing new and surly happened then too!!
so WHERE are the tshuvois in this Important Sanhedrin Dinai Nifoshos SHAYLAH?>>>>????
@Berel - this is a topic discussed here a number of time already. Simple answer is that abuse in general was not viewed as seriously harmful until recently - 1970' as a result of the concern for trauma from the Vietman war and the Feminist movement. It was viewed before then primarily as a moral issue - not pikuach nefesh.
ReplyDeleteIt is not clear whether the increased psychological sensitivity of our culture increased vulnerablity to psychological harm from abuse - or that people simply were not aware of the harm.
Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach is reported to have said that pedophiles in Europe were castrated. I have found only two teshuvos dealing with sexual abuse in the 19th century. It has only become a topic in the teshuva literature in recent years
Rav Shlomo Zalman claimed that Mondrowitz had done teshuva - have no idea what that means but that is what he said to explain his friendliness towards Mondrowitz.
Pedophiles - at least adult ones can never be trusted and can be presumed to be an active danger - even if they haven't abused anyone for 20 or 30 years.
Despite nonsense teshuvos such as that written by R Menashe Klein - the mainstream rabbonim today seem to view pedophiles as dangerous - this is in two editions of Yeshurun and in my 3 volumes of Child and Domestic Abuse. - and advise going to the police to have them deal with the problem.
Again - previous generations did not view this as pikuach nefesh or perhaps it wasn't pikuach nefesh - the present one does.
How can you say it has already been Ten years since TG abused?
ReplyDeleteFirstly the abuse (as sated by the Judge) took place as late as 2005, TG was first arrested in 2011 and that makes it 6 years and not 10.
Secondly you have no proof that he didn't abuse anyone else in the years after 2005 its just that they haven't come forward YET (its most likely as many of us know he has been abusing people all his life).
Thirdly who on earth said anything about 10 years (I believe its something the "Askonim" came up with to try and make the victims into the bad boys). if someone is an active danger and till such time as they have received the correct help they remain active and therefore dangerous.
some times pedophiles abuse in pattern (may be a 5 year break between offences) but that means they are still dangerous!!
the Quote:
ReplyDelete'Simple answer is that abuse in general was not viewed as seriously
harmful until recently - 1970' as a result of the concern for trauma
from the Vietnam war and the Feminist movement. It was viewed before
then primarily as a moral issue - not pikuach nefesh'.
What? So WE are Breaking NEW ground here?
We are learning from the Vietnam Vets? the feminists? Who?
Please explain your words!!
I recall a saying of the Chasam Sofer 'Chodosh ossur min Hatorah'!!
Since when do we make changes to mesorah?
The whole moral battle /Standing against Chasidim was no change EVEN for Beneficial changes.
I
would think that a referendum of All accepted Rabbonim and torah leader
today even which if all would agree! still wont change the mesorah.
Half
of klal yisroel dress in the style of 250 years ago and the other
portion dresses like 90 years ago all to keep the mesorah! And you hold
that we can today make CHANGES?
Changes ?When we barely have a
functional baisdin system that works ,We barely have any rabbonim that
know kol hatorah kulah ,So NOW in this POOR generation we will enact
NEW deenai Dinai Nifoshos guidelines ?? HOW?
I think the only
permitted methods would be a Pirsum of dangerous people,firing.
expulsions that we can and must do .. punishments of the money kind
....Cherem ...etc...
@Berel - I am not sure what religion you belong to. There is no Mesora concerning child abuse. If it is in fact a new phenomenon - then we deal with the facts according to Torah rules. If it is something we did not understand in the past - the fact that we now understand the consequences requires that we deal with the facts as they are. The Chasam Sofer dealt with reality - what are you dealing with?
ReplyDeleteWho? Who made this new decicion ?Who decided that this was not understood in the past by the Chasam Sofer The Chazon Ish The Brisker Rov BUT Nowwe are so Smart and we do understand Better the them?
ReplyDelete@Berel I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are a recent baal teshuva. Your understanding of the MESORAH is not what someone who has been in yeshiva thinks.
ReplyDeleteFacts and human beings change. Rav Moshe's annulment of marriages is based on the fact that the Talmudic statement that woman are desparate for marriage no longer applies. absolutely anymore.
There are many examples - Rav Herschel Schachter has a nice discussion of exactly this issue on yu.org
In the area of gittin which we have discussed extensively - the gaonim did in fact have a get on demand of the wife. The Rishonim said that was relevant when there was fear that women would convert to Islam if they weren't given a get - but in the time of the rishonim the greater concern was that women would decide that there husband wasn't good enough so divorce became much more difficult. We see in our times a swing of the pendulum.
We have the takanos of Rabbeinu Gershom - which were not like the mesora from Talmudic times.
Please go ask your rebbe to expalin what Mesorah really means.
Daas torah I do recognize your wonderful work
ReplyDeletebut Please refrain from attack me personally I am not yet a true Baal tshuvh I wish i was!
As for my Rebe Not that it is relevant to the truth of my arguments I related you that I am a talmid of Reb Dovid Solovithcik I studied by him over six Years spent much time with him and attended the Chumash hashkafo shiur also during those years and studied under and consulted and Mesorah with a few other giants of Mesorah in new york including Reb Moshe Feigelstock who was just nifter Z'L who was consulted by Reb Aharon and Reb Reuven.ztl and was a giant in Haskofo and I did have some of these discussions with both gedolim please do not try to gain control of the argument by calling me a Baal teshuvah !(which is truly a compliment any way) I for one am proud to say I do have a Mesorah.. As for the psakim of reb Moshe you quote , only one who has Kol hatorah kulo in his hands from the Gemorah and Major Reshonim, all the TUR and Shulchan aruch in his memory in his memory only Then can one venture to poskin like Reb Moshe BUT Chas Visholom to QUOTING SHALOS Utshuvos with out having studied fluently ALL the background source material and then also studying the WHOLE halache only then can one venture to PASKEN. Reb moshes psakim are for people like Reb Moshe.they were never meant to be handed out like candy.to the Hamon Am
There is an adaptive side to halacha and a severe, fixed one. However, I am not aware of what written rules determine when and how much halacha can adapt. This has been a debate between the MO and the Yeshivish Hareidi world. All of the above arguments were made by people like R' Rackman 50 years ago, showing that halacha can and should adapt. All times are "modern", not only today. 1000 years ago , at that time was also "Modern". The rules are that Daas Torah is necessary to decide when and how much halacha can change. But we choose our own Daas, ie decisor, whether minority or majority.
ReplyDeleteIn the above debate, Berel is taking the Hareidi/Hatam Sofer position, whereas DT is taking the "Modern/Rackmanesque" position.
@Berel rather strange you asking that I not criticize you after you criticized me for ignoring the Mesorah. My point stands - your view of a thing called Mesorah which is fixed - simply ignores reality. I assume you are aware of the dispute between the Chazon Ish and Rav Chaim Na'eh? Your insistence that there must be such a thing of a Mesora on child abuse - is simply wrong. Rav Dovid Cohen searched the literature at the request of Rabbi Ronnie Greenwald and could not find any such Mesorah or even acknowledgment that there was such a thing. My citation of Rav Moshe was to show you that facts change and with it what is called the Mesora. If Rav Moshe tells you that people think differently - you don't need to be a gadol to utilize that fact. Similar he states that people in America suffer from nervousness - something to take into account when understanding interpersonal relationship which are different than they were in Europe.
ReplyDeleteWhy are you having trouble understanding the elementary fact that metzius changes and with it psak? There is no Mesora on psychotherapy - does that bother you. I assume you are aware that the nature of Chinuch has changed - even within my lifetime regarding the switch to rewards and not hitting. What happened to the Mesorah as you understand it. What is the Mesora about the time Shabbos is over. You perhaps are aware that the Gra looked at the sky and said that Rabbeinu Tam is wrong. What happened to Mesora?
Instead of me pulling out all the examples that contradict your understanding - why don't you write a guest post about the True Mesorah which has existed from Sinai to the present - and include explanations for all the examples I have cited.
You've actually lost your mind and started rambling yourself!
ReplyDelete@Eddie - you are simple wrong. Chasv'shalom that the normative yeshiva view that I am expxressing is that of R Rackman. Perhaps you can claim Brisk has a unique understanding of Mesora which differs from the Charedi view.
ReplyDeletePlease listen to Rav Herschel Schacter's shiur on YU.org. Rabbi Rackman approach was simply in violation of halacha as Rabbi Bleich clearly shows. It was not a MO vs Chareidi battle.The Chasam Sofer views were not fixed in cement but in fact he was an innovator. Please read the exchange of letters with the Maharetz Chajes. He was also a friend with maskilim and was knowledgable about science
In short - those who claim halacha has to adapt(i.e. you first decide the outcome you want and then twist the halacha to fit) has nothing to do with those who claim that the facts that halacha must deal with change and as a result of the changing facts (such as that women are not as desparate to be married) the halacha changes. The view that I am expressing means that the Chasam Sofer would pasken differently in the 21st century. Not because the halacha is outdated - but because the facts that the halacha is applied to has changed.
I remember speaking to a very frum rosh yeshiva - a product of Rav Ahaon's Lakewood who told me "there is no such thing as mesora".
Finally if you look at the Rambam he seems to understood that what is called mesora is not mechanically transmitted by the baalei mesora but is in large part created or shaped by them for the contemporary society.
Not really, you are the "Rackman" of child abuse, just like Rav Emanuel was the Rackman of agunos. Rackman didnt argue that halacha has to change, he said that the reality has changed and we must search for halachic solutions to problems that might not have been widespread 20 years earlier. the difference is that whilst Rackman was working to free women trapped in marriages, you are working to fight child abuse. In act your arguement is more radical than Rackman's, since there is no halachic mesora for child abuse (although Rackman was extremely talented and would have found one), whereas there are precedents for agunot.
ReplyDeleteThe arguments that there is no mesora or that mesora is shaped by society are basically pinched from One Man's Judaism. There, R' Rackman distinguishes between several legal systems, the textual mesora system, and the teleological one. I see your arguments as being teleological. I do not mean to insult you, but to compliment you on your good work. Unfortunately, you may feel insulted if I say your arguments are similar to Rackman's.
I asked R Bleich once about halachic change, and he said there is no such thing as a psak without precedent, and he denied the validity of a teleological halacha. So presumably , he would not accept a new halacha for child abuse, unless he finds a halachic way to support it.
Of course, Rackman was very controversial, but that was his nature. In short, yes the facts on the ground change and halacha adapts to deal with it. The mechanism by which the halacha adapts or changes is the area of dispute. But also, is the authority behind it. 200 years ago, there was no hareid/MO, and reform had hardly begun. So any authority could work to find solutions. today, MO solutions are generally not accepted. The exception is probably heter mechira, since it has basis in R Itzhak Elchonon of Kovno, and rav kook, so it can't be called apikorsus, even though it is not practiced in the hareidi world.
@Eddie the only thing you got right in this comment is that it is insulting to compare me to Rackman!. Please read Rabbi Bleich about R Rackman. You are spouting words on this issue without understanding what you are saying.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the issue of child abuse - once you establish that child abuse is pikuach nefesh then the din of rodef gets involved etc etc. The issue with child abuse is not the innovation of halacha but acknowledging the facts and then applying the halachic principles. The halacha is clearly presented by Rav Eliashiv and others in Yeshurun and in my Child and Domestic abuse. You are clearly mistaken if you think there is no accepted halachic analysis regarding child abuse. The only thing that has changed is acknowledging that that abuse is extremely destructive - the halachic principles are simple once you accept that reality.
Rackman started with the result he wanted and then distorted the halacha to produce those results.
I was responding to the earlier posts int his thread, for example:
ReplyDelete"Rav Moshe's annulment of marriages is based on the fact that the
Talmudic statement that woman are desparate for marriage no longer
applies. absolutely anymore." This was one of Rackman's main arguments. You are perfectly entitled to say he mis-applies it , and perhaps you are right, but nevertheless he was formulating the same kind of argument, as you - ie the situation/society has changed, and we can use existing halachic concepts and apply them to the new situation.
Also "the gaonim did in fact have a get on demand of the wife." So, if ORA or some other group espouse a get on demand, then what is treif about it? it doesn't matter if R Bleich and R Shachter oppose it - or rather it does matter, but at least it means that there is some halachic basis to get on demand (whether accepted or not).
Finally, " a very frum rosh yeshiva - a product of Rav
Ahaon's Lakewood who told me "there is no such thing as mesora".Finally if you look at the Rambam he seems to understood that what is called mesora is not mechanically transmitted by the baalei mesora but is in large part created or shaped by them for the contemporary society"
I am taking these quotes at face value, and saying that this is in fact more radical than what Rackman said. Rackman said that there is a Mesora, but the decisor has a role to play in partnership with G-d, on applying both the Halachic precdents and the meta-halachic principles, eg of justice, to solve contemporary problems.
Nice try, and you are certainly entitled to your take on what I write. Could be you are right.
ReplyDeleteIn the remote possibility you might reconsider, and live up to your name, "Curious", I will break down my comment into pieces that might be easier for you to digest.
The subject at hand is using journaling to combat abuse. In particular, a journal has two complementary uses:
(1) Journaling raises the awareness level of the journalist. The Ramchal refers to this as as Z'hirus, that is, "watchfulness", or "self-awareness".
(2) Journaling provides a window for others into events where they were not present and did not not participate.
Let's keep our eye on the birdie. Abusers depend on their victims falling into the habit of being abused. Abusers depend on others not finding out about the abuse.
When someone keeps a record of their activities, they can recognize patterns that may not otherwise be obvious. To illustrate this point, I gave the example of a colleague who I felt was abusing my time, with myself as the willing victim. I picked an innocuous example. I could just as well have used a more emotionally charged true example, but that would have detracted from the point I was trying to bring out.
I hope you are following so far. To summarize: abuse can depend on the victim going into a kind of embarrassed dream state on a regular basis. A journal can be a tool to wake the victim up.
Admittedly, using record keeping this way is an advanced idea for people who are new to this technique, and the comments section is not the best place to elucidate the concept. That's why I urge you and others to contact me directly to learn more.
Once someone experiences the effectiveness of journaling to overcome the minor indignities in life, they may be more open to considering how journaling can be used to overcome the greater challenges facing society, such as child abuse.
Do we just accept child abuse as part and parcel of life, and accept that this blog will just continue to document this abuse; or are we willing to actually band together and collectively find a way to eradicate child abuse? To be or not to be?
@Eddie - you are an intelligent person. I don't understand your inability or unwillingness to understand a relatively simple distinction between unchanging halachic principles and changing facts - which results in changes in practical halachic decisions. What Rackman did was to change the halachic principles to fit an agenda. Please read Rabbi Bleich's analysis of Rackman.
ReplyDeleteRackman and Reb Moshe are not comparable. You are trying to say Rackman was sincere - I have no knowledge of whether he was or not - but he was not held in high esteem either by Chareidim or the Modern Orthodox.
Comparing ORA and the Gaonim is another example of your problem.
This argument is as old as the hills. Both chasidim and MO/Da'ti Leumi throw out bits of shulchan oruch when it suits them. Chasidim in particular make the tofel (minhogim, supposedly kedusha v'taharah) more important than normative halocho. For example, chasidic chasunos finishing, in the summer at 4AM, when it is well light outside by time choson and kallo get home (ve'hameiven yovin), chasidic teenage girls, healthy and well, have just thrown fast days out of shulchan oruch (not TB I hasten to add) (when they are not pregnant, not trying to become pregnant, not with kids but healthy and well), kiddush shabbos day on a 5ml glass of schnapps, bemah madlikin (mefurash a whole siman in SO) but chas vesholom for a chasidic woman to drive or a man to wear a tie! That's Modernish!
ReplyDeleteBut why are chasidim considered ok by the haredi world, but MO/da'ati outside the pale? Nobody can give me a decent answer. As somebody famous once said, on the Rebbes I have no kashyos and on the talmidim I have no tiruzim!
@Eddie - your description of Rackman simply stretching things a bit too far - is ridiculous. I can say the same thing about Christianity or Shabtsai Tzvi or Conservative.
ReplyDeleteSecondly your apologetic for ORA by saying if they quote frum sources they have a leg to stand on - is like saying that expert doctors sometimes amputate limbs or do heart transplants - therefore if I do the same thing as an incompetent doctor I have a leg to stand on. Did you ever read the Conservative psak regarding riding to Shul and Shabbos? They claim they have a leg because of the use of fire in the Temple on Shabbos and a car is a fire and the Shul is a Temple.
As Rav Sternbuch told me regarding Troppers halachic innovation of converting intermarried couples - if someone wants to introduce an innovation or change - he should write a teshuva about it and see whether it is accepted by the major poskim. ORA has not provided a justification in writing for review by contemporary poskim - nor has Rav Schachter.
Rav Moshe Feinstein wrote about artificial insemination - there was strong initial opposition - but now it is widely accepted. Change does happen but just because it happens sometimes doesn't provide a heter to change everything without widespread acceptance.
You might want to read R Avraham Korman's books on the history of Jewish sects and their acceptance or rejection.
Please see below;
ReplyDeletenot deviations from Shulchan Aruch are of the same negative significance. The Chazon Ish says that halacha follow contemporary authorities and Shulchan Aruch is a fall back position if they aren't sure what to do.
****Yes, but who decides? When MO/DL decide what is and what isn't, they get it wrong, but when chasidim do (another point occured to me - sof zman KS and tefillah) its ok and heimish?*****
*****And one of the problems with our society is that anybody can say 'Chazon Ish said this, Brisker Rov said this etc' etc. They can do the same thing with their gedolim. Without clear written evidence, its a wild west.******
Another issues - despite the harsh condemnation
of chassidim in the early days - it has become clear that they have produced communities where the majority of children will remain frum as
their parents. That can not be said about Modern Orthodox - What about DL,
*****Again, without peer reviewed statistical analysis, this response is meaningless. They will say that many many chareidim are not as charedi as their parents, and what one sees when one walks the streets of Yerusholayim and Bnei Brak they may have a point.....*****
Similarly
R S. R. Hirsch is considered a tzadik by chareidim - even though he promoted secular studies etc etc - because he succeeded in creating a
viable community of Oerthodox Jews from one that was dying.
*****With all due respect, when I was in yeshiva the party line was that "RSRH is not from our Beis Hamedrash" which is a nice way of saying you know what. In yeshivish speak I would say "We have a clear mesorah from Rabbi XYZ that RSRH is not from our beis hamedrash". That's the problem, once somebody says they have a clear mesorah from the Chazon Ish, Brisker Rov or whoever it is a conversation stopper and just stifles intelligent debate.****
It is a
simple Darwinian principle. Those deviations or changes which succeed
in producing a new generation of frum people are accepted. - e.g,
Chassidim, R S. R. Hirsch, Kollel, Mussar movement).
*****Who decides that chasidim are frum? As far as I am concerned anybody that tramples on sof zeman KS/tefillay and who doesn't fast for no good reason is not that frum. As well us those that elevate eating and drinking far more than chazal ever intended. And anyway, where is the source for Rebbes in our mesorah, Rebbes that are treated like Gods? ****
Those deviations
or changes which don't succeed are rejected (i.e., Reform Conservative
etrc etc).
**** I am talking about MO/DL vs Chasidim not reform*****
@John Smith - you are asking the source, basis and nature of rabbinic authority.
ReplyDeleteObviously charedi authorities think they have the right and ability to decide the issues you raised. MO authorities also think they have the right and ability to decide. If the authority is accepted by the masses it has significance.
So what if Chareidi and MO authorities disagree? What if Chareidi rabbis disagree with each other or MO disagree with each other? Without a Sanhedrin - there is no basis of forcing a decision as binding.
In real life there are 3 basic mechanisms - 1) if a certain approach seems beneficial it will survive and be accepted if it is harmful it will be rejected. 2) If most poskim accept a certain approach it because viewed as the right answer. 3) If the supporters of one view can apply sanctions against those who disagree then that power to provide reward and punsihment tends to win.
However there is still room for minority views. This gets into the world of politics, sociology and ruach hakodesh.
The rest is commentary and there are many books and articles that attempt to rationalize the system.
OK as long as we both agree that DL Mizrachi and Chasidism have perfect right to throw out bits of shulchan oruch of their choiveproviding they fit into the three criteria you outline above. And neither side has any right to criticise or look down on the other. Fine. But your comments and responses don't give the impression you really believe that...
ReplyDeleteThe comparison of Conservative driving on shabbat with using the Geonim as a basis for halacha is not very convincing. Ironically, Rackman once criticised leibovitz for doing the same, ie claiming that the State of Israel is exempt from keeping shabbos, just as the Temple was allowed to burn korbanot.
ReplyDeleteOnce again - my original argument was that saving children from abuse as a new halachic situation, is similar to the claim that saving women from being locked in aguna type marriages. It is not a persuasive argument to claim that the first is working form the sources and coming at an unbiased conclusion to permit intervention, mesira etc; whilst the other is starting with the conclusion (set them free) then working backwards to find a halachic solution. They are both doing the same. the difference is that the first was successful, and the Posek Hador agreed to it, whereas the same Poske Hador ztl rejected any solutions on agunot (although he produced many whilst under the BD of R Herzog).
I accept the points you make here and below in response to John smith. What you are saying is that just as in political theory there is Realpolitik, in halacha there is "realhalachik". End of the day, you need an authority behind you, or be able to put sanction on your opponents. Remember also that the Geonim had their own feuds and controversies, R' Saadia attacked some other Geonim, and Rambam attacked previous Gaonim, sometimes alleging they were Tzeddukim or influenced by them.
@John Smith - no we don't agree. Each side can claim that the other side is wrong and is adopting an illegitimate position which must be fought. So I am not saying eilu v'eilu. Which is why my comments don't give you the impression that that is my position
ReplyDelete@Eddie I strongly disagree with your description of child abuse and its comparison to aguna. We have gone around a number of times and you simply keep reinterpret my views to say something I disagree with. I disagree strongly with your understanding of Rabbi Rackman I am simply quitting at this point.There is no point for further analysis when you can't even grasp what point I am making .
ReplyDeleteOk so in words of one syllable please explain;
ReplyDeleteWhy do you look down on DL/Mizrachi/YU crowd wrong for the bits of shulchan oruch/mesora they take leniently,
BUT
You have no such problem with chasidim who do the same, albeit with different sections of SA/mesora?
@John Smith - I don't answer questions of the form "when did you stop beating your wife?"
ReplyDeleteIf you want to talk about a specific case - please cite what you found problematic and then we will have something to discuss
I think it would be reasonable to assume that every society will always suffer from child abuse. With enough focus from community leaders, the judiciary, police, governments and social workers, it is possible to significantly reduce the number of children affected, but will never eradicate it unfortunately. Crime in general will always exist.
ReplyDeleteSocieties that are not willing to accept the existence of child abuse, and not providing people with the awareness to protect themselves, only contribute to further child abuse.
When communities, like the Chareidi community referred to by the Gateshead Rov, actively protect known abusers, persecute victims and illegally pervert the course of justice by attempting to keep paedophiles on the streets and unpunished, the only outcome will be more abused children.
Your journals are a waste of time. Community leaders need a big wake up call!
half century late
ReplyDeleteThere's an old joke about a Jew on a deserted island. The rescuers arrive and notice two Shuls. "One Shul I Daven in", the castaway explains. "And the other one, I will never step foot in!"
ReplyDeleteI find your response curious, Curious. While I don't subscribe to the idea that all Jews are argumentative, I am struck by the vehemence with which you reject my plan.
I am also reminded of another joke a Rav told me. "You can always get two Jews to agree", he counseled, "on what a third Jew should do."
So great. Go ahead. Knock yourself out. Get other people to wake up. Me? I'll work on waking myself up, and on giving others the opportunity to do the same. It is up to them to avail themselves of what I place before them. They can take it or leave it. All I ask is that they not spit on it.
Thank you.