Power of Negative Thinking

NYTimes:

GREED — and its crafty sibling, speculation — are the designated culprits for the financial crisis. But another, much admired, habit of mind should get its share of the blame: the delusional optimism of mainstream, all-American, positive thinking.

As promoted by Oprah Winfrey, scores of megachurch pastors and an endless flow of self-help best sellers, the idea is to firmly believe that you will get what you want, not only because it will make you feel better to do so, but because “visualizing” something — ardently and with concentration — actually makes it happen. You will be able to pay that adjustable-rate mortgage or, at the other end of the transaction, turn thousands of bad mortgages into giga-profits if only you believe that you can.

Positive thinking is endemic to American culture — from weight loss programs to cancer support groups — and in the last two decades it has put down deep roots in the corporate world as well. Everyone knows that you won’t get a job paying more than $15 an hour unless you’re a “positive person,” and no one becomes a chief executive by issuing warnings of possible disaster.

The tomes in airport bookstores’ business sections warn against “negativity” and advise the reader to be at all times upbeat, optimistic, brimming with confidence. It’s a message companies relentlessly reinforced — treating their white-collar employees to manic motivational speakers and revival-like motivational events, while sending the top guys off to exotic locales to get pumped by the likes of Tony Robbins and other success gurus. Those who failed to get with the program would be subjected to personal “coaching” or shown the door.

The once-sober finance industry was not immune. On their Web sites, motivational speakers proudly list companies like Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch among their clients. What’s more, for those at the very top of the corporate hierarchy, all this positive thinking must not have seemed delusional at all. With the rise in executive compensation, bosses could have almost anything they wanted, just by expressing the desire. No one was psychologically prepared for hard times when they hit, because, according to the tenets of positive thinking, even to think of trouble is to bring it on. [...]

When it comes to how we think, “negative” is not the only alternative to “positive.” As the case histories of depressives show, consistent pessimism can be just as baseless and deluded as its opposite. The alternative to both is realism — seeing the risks, having the courage to bear bad news and being prepared for famine as well as plenty. We ought to give it a try.

Breslov - Ownership of R'Nachman's grave resolved

JPost reported:

Euro-Asian Jewish Congress President Alexander Machkevich said Wednesday he has resolved a prickly land dispute over the reputed grave site of the founder of Breslov Hassidism in the Ukraine, and has recovered the area for the benefit of the local Breslov community.

The controversy over the land where Rabbi Nachman Breslover (1772-1810), also known as Nachman from Uman, is thought to be buried began six years ago after the local Jewish community decided to build a new synagogue at the site, and employed a Ukrainian contractor to do the job.

After the Jewish community defaulted on payment, the Ukrainian Supreme Court ruled that the contractor, who is also a member of the country's parliament, became the lawful owner of the property, Machkevich said.

Years of negotiations failed to resolve the issue.[...]

After six months of negotiations, Machkevich, a self-made billionaire, closed a deal with the Ukrainian contractor last week after paying him more than half a million dollars.[...]

AG Mazuz asks Supreme Court to overrule religious s. court

JPost:

Attorney-General Menahem Mazuz has called on the High Court of Justice to accept a petition by a Danish-born convert to Judaism demanding that it overrule rabbinical court decisions nullifying the conversions, including hers, made by special courts headed by Rabbi Haim Druckman.

The call to cancel the conversions was made by Dayan (religious court judge) Avraham Attia, a member of the Ashdod District Rabbinical Court, and in a ruling by Dayan Avraham Sherman of the Supreme Rabbinical Court.

The petition against the cancellations was filed by the Danish-born woman whose Judaism was rejected by Attia 15 years after she converted, her three children and a long list of women's organizations, including the Center for Women's Justice.

In his response to the petition, which was filed on June 5, Mazuz argued that Attia's decision should have been rejected because of procedural flaws and therefore the Supreme Rabbinical Court should not have heard the appeal or ruled on the matter at all.

This would mean not only that the woman would still be considered a Jew, but that the ruling to nullify the Druckman conversion court decisions would also not have been made.

According to Mazuz, Attia did not give the woman a fair chance to defend herself against his ruling that her conversion was fraudulent because she had not observed halacha.

The case had begun innocently, when the convert and her husband filed for an uncontested divorce. All seemed to be going well during the hearing and Attia was preparing the terms of the divorce when he asked her whether she was observant. The woman replied she was not, not realizing that this could impact on the divorce application.

It did. Soon afterwards, Attia ruled the woman was not Jewish and that therefore the marriage was invalid from the start, and the couple did not need a divorce.

He also ruled that the woman and her children could not marry here for the time being.[...]

Non-Jewish Prostitutes - Torah & Rabbinic prohibitions

shoshi asked in a previous post:

Someone who spent more than 10 years learning in a kollel told me that "there is no issur mideoraita to have sexual intercourse with a non-jewish woman, as long as no one sees it"

He says that only Rambam says that there is an issur mideoraita, but if you do not accept rambam, you can go with non-jewish prostitutes as a religious jew and you do not infringe halacha, except perhaps miderabbanan.

Can you confirm this opinion?
If not: what are the sources?

-----------------------------------------------
To summarize the answer. Contrary what your "former kollel member" told you, it is prohibited on the Doreissa level according to many poskim. Rambam's position is not clear - except he emphasizes that the prohibition in private is rabbinic - but leaves open the question whether the person incurs kares (from tradition). In other words he holds that the Torah prohibitions of "Not to marry non-Jews" and "the zealots can kill them" only applies to public acts or marriage. but possibly holds that private acts are punished by kares (from tradition) which is not a rabbinic punishment but similar to a Torah punishment. On the other hand there are clearly views that do accept that the prohibition is entirely rabbinic and that there is no kares for private acts. It is not clear what the majority position is. Furthemore to say that "you do not infringe halacha, except perhaps miderabbanan" shows a gross ignorance or insensitivity to not only the nature of rabbinic prohibitions but also the seriousness that they - the divinely prescribed guardians and shapers of Judaism - view that matter. Therefore anyone who has any concern for his soul would not engage in such behavior.
----------------------------------
Regarding the question raised as to the prohibition of non-Jewish prostitutes. Here are some sources I have gathered. There is more material - but this should suffice to show that it is not simply a decree made by some rabbis 2000 years ago- but it also involves a Torah prohbition as well as being punishable by kares (known from tradition). The Rabbinic prohibitions are extensively discussed details in Avoda Zara (36b) and Sanhedrin (82a). It doesn't take a great talmid chachom to understand that the matter is viewed as a serious transgression.

Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:2): There is only an explicit Torah prohibition of sexual relations with non‑Jews in the context of marriage. However if one fornicated with a non‑Jewess in the manner of zenus – then there is a rabbinical punishment of lashes which was made as a decree to prevent intermarriage. If he had a regular relationship without marrying her than he transgresses the prohibitions of nidda, maidservant, relationship with a non‑Jewess and because of prostitution. If they didn’t have a regular relationship than he is only liable because of relationship with a non‑Jewesss. All these liablities are rabbinic.

Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:6): If the man having relations with a non-Jewish woman doesn’t get punished by zealots and doesn’t get lashes from beis din – then the punishment is kares which is known from tradition (Malachi 2:11-12)…We learn from this verse that someone who has sexual relations with a non‑Jewish woman is as if he is married to an idol since this verse describes her the daughter of a strange god and it is described as profaning G‑d’s holiness.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 16:1): A Jew who has sexual relations with a non‑Jew in the context of marriage or a Jewish woman who has sexual relations with a non‑Jew receive lashes according to Torah as it says in Devarim (7:3). Others disagree. However some who has sexual relations with a non‑Jew not in the context of marriage and not in a fixed relationship receives lashes according to Rabbinic edict because of idolatry, and prostitution. If they have a fixed relationship than he is liable because of the Rabbinic edict of niddah, maidservant, idolatry and prostitution. If he is a cohen then even if they have a transient relationship then he gets lashes according to the Torah because of prostitution (Vayikra 21:7).

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 16:2): Concerning someone who has sexual relations with a non‑Jew – if the zealots don’t punish him and he doesn’t get lashes from beis din – then his punishment of kares is stated clearly in the Bible Melachi (2:11-12)….Rema: And this sin has a loss that is not found in other sexual transgressions – the child who results from a relationship with a maidservant or non‑Jewish woman is not his child (Tur citing the Rambam). However if he publicly has sexual relations with a non‑Jew the halacha is that zealots can kill him as is stated in Choshen Mishpat (425). Thus this transgression is included in arayos (sexual transgressions) and one is required to suffer martyrdom rather than transgress it (Yoreh Deah 157).

The Rambam and Shulchan Aruch seem to be saying that fornication with a non‑Jew is only a rabbinic prohibiion. However the (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 12:6) of the Rambam raises questions about this. It states that while the prohibition against marriage or the punishment from zealots is only when the relationship is public – he doesn’t say whether the punishment of kares is only for a public act or also for a private act. A similar question occurs in regards to the Shulchan Aruch.

There are a number of poskim who say that fornication even in private would be punishable by kares (learned from tradition. These are found in commentary to E. H. (16:4) include the Avnei Miluim, Beis Shmuel, Derisha, Bach and Chasam Sofer (E.H. 1:93) [see below]. So even for a person who is not bothered by the clearly stated rabbinic prohibition – he should be concerned about kares.

In addition there are those who say that there is an explicit Torah prohibition(Vayikra 18:21).

Targum Yonason (Vayikra 18:21): And don’t give from your seed in sexual intercourse with a daughter of the nations that she beget a child that will pass over to idolatry…

Aruch (Aram): Megila (25a): Whoever says that Vayikra (18:21),”Do not give your seed to Moloch” means you are only prohibited from having sexual relations with an Aramean woman because then your child will be given over to the worship of the god Moloch – which implies that it is permissible with other non‑Jewish women – he is silenced and rebuked. Rather the explanation of the verse is as stated in the braissa cited by the gemora. The school of R’ Yishmael said that this verse is describing someone who has sexual relations with any non‑Jewish woman who gives birth to a [non-Jewish] child who will be for idolatery. That is because there is no difference between the idolatery of Moloch and other idolatry….

Chasam Sofer (E. H. 1:93): The Avnei Miluim wrote that even though a Jew who has relations with a non‑Jewish woman that there is a distinction between in private or in public [for the law of zealots killing them] , nevertheless when a non‑Jew has relations with a Jewish woman there is no such distinction. Futhermore in private there is also kares [when a Jew has sexual relations with a non‑Jewish woman. This is learned from Sanhedrin (82a), Rav was made to read in a dream that G‑d cuts off the man who does this [has relations with a non‑Jewish woman]. Since the view of the Rosh should be maintained the questions arises whether a cohen’s relations with a non‑Jewish woman invalidates his right to serve as a priest as ervah (Torah sexual transgressions) do? This seems to be refuted by the gemora in Yevamos (455a) which states that sexual relations with a non‑Jew or slave do not produce a child with the status of mamzer. That is because mamzer only results from sexual relations with someone classified as ervah or kares. It seems clear from this gemora that even though a Jew having relations with a non‑Jew is punished by death at the hand of zealots and he is liable to the punishment of kares learned from tradition – nevetheless this is not considered ervah. These are the words of the Avnei Milluim. I want to add support to his position. Megila (25a) says that anyone who interprets the verse “Don’t give your seed to pass over to Molech” to mean don’t impregnate a non‑Jewish woman – is silenced and rebuked. Rashi explains that the reason for this is that he is uprooting the true meaning of the verse and is saying incorrectly that one who has relations with a non‑Jewish is liable to kares and that the man is liable to bring a chatos if he does it unwittingly and he is executed by beis din if he does it deliberately after being warned. It can be concluded from this that even though a person is liable to kares for having relations with a non‑Jewish woman in private and can be killed by zealots if he does it openly – nevertheless this relationship is not considered ervah for which there would be execution by the beis din and also a chatos if he did it unwittingly. Thus this is consistent with the proof brought from Yevamos (45a). Consequently the cohen is not invalidated from his priestly duties by sexual relations with a non‑Jewess.

Maharsha (Megila 25a): R’ Yishmael – the verse describes a Jew who had relations with a non‑Jewish woman. According to Rashi it R’ Yishmael is cited in the gemora to describe the mistaken view that the Mishna says is to be silenced. And thus is supporting the view that the verse is referring to idolatery. However according to the Aruch [s.v. Aram] it appears that R’ Yishmael is cited as to the correct view of the verse. The Aruch asserts that the correct understanding of the verse is that it prohibits having sexual relations with a non‑Jew. The Aruch therefore says that the view that the Mishna wants silenced is the assertion that the prohibition of sexual relations applies only the Aramean women who are associated with the idolatry of Molech [when in fact it applies to all non‑Jews]. The view of the Aruch is also relevant according to the understanding of Tosfos Yom Tov…

Tosfos Yom Tov (Megila 4:9): A person who says Vayikra (18:21) prohibits sexual relations with a non‑Jew is silenced and rebuked … I have found in the Aruch (s.v. Aram) that he writes concerning Vayikra (18:21) that it means who ever gives of his seed to the well known people who give their seed to Molech for example the Arameans. That is because you are causing that your descendants be passed over to Molech. This implies that it is permitted concerning other nations who don’t give their children to Molech. Therefore he needs to be silenced and rebuked. Consequently the true explanation of Vayikra (18:21) is as is taught by the School of R’ Yishmael. It refers to a Jew who has sexual relations with a non‑Jewish woman who begets a child which will be given over to idolatry – because there is no difference between Molech and any other type of idolatry. These are the words of the Aruch. Rashi on the other hand says that the gemora cites the School of R’ Yishmael as explaining the view the Mishna says not to have. It would definitely seem that even according to the Aruch the citation of the School of R’ Yishmael is not coming to uproot the meaning of the verse and insist that it is saying the a person who has sexual relations with a non‑Jews is punished with cares… The understanding of the Aruch is supported by the Targum Yonason which says “Don’t give of your seed in sexual relations to a non‑Jewish woman who will beget a child for idolatry.”…

Prostitutes & sin - Halacha is not bean counting

shoshi - comment to "Non-Jewish prostitutes - how serious a sin?":

The original question was:

"what is worse: a married jewish woman who does not always cover her head in public or a jewish man who has sexual relationship with a person to whom he is not married?"

And this ex-kolelnik's answer was:

A woman who does not cover her hair is worse, since she openly rejects part of the halacha, while the poor guy just is not able to restrain himself momentarily. So he would not trust the woman who does not cover her hair for kashrut (since all her standards are lower), but he would have no problem in trusting a man who occasionally uses the services of prostitutes as far as kashrut is concerned.

===============================
Soshi in response to my list of eight alternative understandings of her question wrote:

Well the questions that particularly intrigues me would come right before your question 3):

3.1. Is it worse to have sexual relationships with a jewish woman who is not married and not nida (she went to the mikve) or with a non-jewish woman?

3.2. In the above case, (if a jewish woman who is not married and not nida and a jewish man have intercourse) who does the worse aveira, the Man or the Woman?

3.3. So why should the woman be shunned if she gets pregnant?

And of course the subject that was raised in an answer earlier:

Is going to see a prostitute really less a sin than masturbating.

========================================
You are asking very solid and reality oriented questions. I will try to deal with them individually after a more general discussion of the significance of the questions.

These questions are reflections of either an academic or scholarly attitude or a minimalistic concern for yiddishkeit. Instead of focusing on what is the best way for self improvement and becoming closer to G-d - the questions reflect - "what is the most efficient way to sin so that I get maximum pleasure and minimum punishment." However questions which asks "which is better?" are different than questions of "is something permitted or forbidden.? Hierarchies depend upon context which are dependent on the goals the posek sees for the person as well as realistically what is in the questioner's best interest. Thus they would be answered differently for different people. It is not simply based upon which is the way to incur the smallest punishment. Sometimes greater punishments should be incurred to bring about a greater future good.

That is why I have put up a number of posts on related issues such as the nature of Chazal. Psak is not bean counting. Halacha is the path to serving G-d. That is why I posted the comment of Rav Yaakov Kaminetsky that a nidah is preferable to a non-Jewish woman - the psak being based on the non-halachic issue of Jewish identity.

To return to your original concern, I am in the middle of answering your original question as to the halachic status of non-Jewish prostitutes - is it true that there is no Torah prohibition and that it is at most a rabbinic prohibition. I will post soon on the Torah basis for prohibition of a non-Jewish prostitute as well as the nature of the rabbinic prohibition.

However, let me illustrate this non-halachic or agadic nature of psak with the following gemora
Sanhedrin (75a):

Rab Judah said in Rab's name: A man once conceived a passion for a certain woman,3 and his heart was consumed by his burning desire [his life being endangered thereby]. When the doctors were consulted, they said, ‘His only cure is that she shall submit.’ Thereupon the Sages said: ‘Let him die rather than that she should yield.’ Then [said the doctors]; ‘let her stand nude before him;’ [they answered] ‘sooner let him die’. ‘Then’, said the doctors, ‘let her converse with him from behind a fence’. ‘Let him die,’ the Sages replied ‘rather than she should converse with him from behind a fence.’ Now R. Jacob b. Idi and R. Samuel b. Nahmani dispute therein. One said that she was a married woman; the other that she was unmarried. Now, this is intelligible on the view, that she was a married woman, but on the latter, that she was unmarried, why such severity? — R. Papa said: Because of the disgrace to her family. R. Aha the son of R. Ika said: That the daughters of Israel may not be immorally dissolute. Then why not marry her? — Marriage would not assuage his passion, even as R. Isaac said: Since the destruction of the Temple, sexual pleasure has been taken [from those who practise it lawfully] and given to sinners, as it is written. Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant.

Prostitutes & Judaism - Degradation of women

Shmuely Boteach wrote in JPost:

In Ireland last week, in front of hundreds of students at University College in Dublin, I participated in a debate on whether pornography is destructive or harmless. Numerous speakers on the pro-pornography side argued that it was a central part of women's liberation, a point which met with thunderous cheers from the women in the audience.

When it was my turn to speak, I asked the young women present to raise their hands if they needed a man. Not one hand went up. I then told them that commensurate with the degree to which men are becoming immature, porn-obsessed schoolboys, women are giving up on the hope of ever finding a noble, well-mannered gentleman. As women confront the vulgar reality of how men treat them, they discover that becoming masturbatory material to men is not particularly liberating.

This despair of Dublin's women was mirrored the next evening in a conversation with a 29-year-old woman who told me that she had given up on finding a good man, seeing as the men in Dublin were conditioned "to treat women as orifices."

"A huge number of women play along," she told me, "by coming out on Friday and Saturday nights in their skimpy miniskirts in the freezing cold, getting completely drunk and doing anything the guys want in the mistaken belief that somehow this will bring them love. After a few years they give up on men and become like me."

NOWHERE IN the Western world are we raising a generation of men who pride themselves on their restraint and respect toward women. We are likewise failing to cultivate women who refuse to be complicit in their own degradation and who insist that their sexuality be shared with a man only in the context of a serious and tangible romantic commitment. It's a man's world. Women just live in it.

This is even true in marriage, as more and more relationship experts blame a cheating husband on his wife. If a man is unfaithful, they argue, it is often due to the fact that he feels lonely and unappreciated by his wife. By recognizing that their husbands have emotional and sexual needs which she may be ignoring, a wife can win her husband back and ensure that he does not stray.

But this attempt to blame the victim ignores the fact that the principle reason men womanize is to shore up their broken egos. There are so many damaged husbands who think that a nurturing stranger who both desires him and wishes to lend an ear to his pain will be a salve to his painfully low self-esteem. In many cases, these are husbands who have wives who could not be more devoted, who give them sex whenever they want, who pine for them to come home at night, all to no avail. No matter how much she huffs and puffs, she cannot inflate his perforated ego.

Would we really suggest that, as Elizabeth Edwards ran around the country with incurable cancer catering to her husband's yearning to be president, that her husband John cheated on her because she wasn't caring enough? After Silla Ward Spitzer garnered national ridicule by quite literally standing by her husband Elliot in his greatest moment of shame, would we inflict the final insult on her by telling her that her husband hung out with hookers because of her neglect?

IN THIS age of husbands who are sports and TV addicts, I dare say there are probably more wives ignored by their husbands than the reverse. But women seem much more capable of controlling themselves and deciding that a husband's neglect is no excuse to corrupt one's character and become immoral. Indeed, the only way to truly affair-proof one's marriage is to decide that the pleasure of righteous action and moral heroism by far outstrips anything that can be experienced in illicit sex.

There is something magical in a man's ability to turn down an opportunity to stray and walk away from the encounter a devoted husband and moral giant. One of the prime reasons we all suffer from low self-esteem these days is that we are not the people we want to be. Becoming a liar and a cheat is probably not, in the long run, going to make us feel a whole lot better about ourselves. But deciding to behave righteously even when we are in pain will.[...]

Prisoner of Zion & Israeli society/ Reality check

Bartley Kulp - More about conversos. You all have got to read this remarkable story from beginning to end.

Haaretz reported:

During the same week that Israel, represented by Absorption Minister Eli Aflalo and National Insurance Institute Director General Esther Dominisini, officially honored the Prisoners of Zion, one of the most famous such prisoners, Edouard Kuznetsov, received a letter from that very same NII demanding that he repay NIS 437 to which, in the NII's unexplained opinion, he was not entitled. This letter was preceded by a demand that he return NIS 14,194 that he had received in disability payments last year, on account of disabilities that, so the letter stated, he does not have. In other words, the state, in whose name he was once declared a Prisoner of Zion, now sees him as a little thief who is swindling it.

The truth is that Kuznetsov, 69, is a big thief. In 1970, he was the leader of the Leningrad Group, which sought to hijack a Soviet plane in order to reach Israel. He knew the chances were slim, but believed that a scandal of that magnitude would arouse world public opinion to act against the Kremlin's emigration policy.

The group was caught at the airport by two KGB units that vied to take credit for the big accomplishment, even going so far as to strike each other in front of the shocked hijackers. Kuznetsov was sentenced to death in a lightning trial. He only discovered much later why he did not die.

Around 10 years ago, he said, Yitzhak Rager, a former mayor of Be'er Sheva and active participant in the struggle for Soviet Jewry, showed up at his Jerusalem home. This happened shortly before Rager's death. Rager told him the following story, which is being published here for the first time: In the days before Kuznetsov's scheduled execution, Generalissimo Francisco Franco was preparing to execute three Basque terrorists. The world was enraged. Then-prime minister Golda Meir summoned Rager to her office. "Go to Franco and tell him: 'We know that you come from a family of converts and that you already helped Spanish Jews by refusing to hand them over to Hitler; now, help the Jews again. Grant a pardon to the Basques in order to put pressure on [Soviet leader Leonid] Brezhnev."

And so it was. Brezhnev apparently would have been uncomfortable having the world view fascism as more humane than communism. Thus Kuznetsov's sentence was commuted to 15 years in jail.

To serve his sentence, he was brought back to the gulag where he had previously served a seven-year sentence as a political prisoner. "It was like going home," he laughs. Nine years later, he was released in exchange for two Soviet spies, and in 1979, he arrived in Israel.

In the meantime, the Kremlin's emigration policy had changed. Kuznetsov is convinced that his hijacking played a crucial role.

It is hard to say that he fell in love with the homeland he had yearned for, but he certainly has had an effect on it. He became the backbone of the Russian-language press that flourished following the massive wave of immigration in the 1990s, and has edited Vremya, Vesty and Mig News. After a few scandals that are stories in their own right, he started publishing an intellectual journal called Nota Bene, which was ranked one of the best of its kind in the world by a prestigious Russian journal. However, it closed due to lack of funds.

Since then he has hardly worked. He lives off his old age pension and the NIS 338 a month he receives as a former Prisoner of Zion. This situation leaves him a lot of time to think, some of which is dedicated to despairing critiques of the state's weakness and what he sees as its lack of pride.

Pride and stubbornness are important qualities for him. Sometimes they get him into trouble, but sometimes they save him. Coming out of a catheterization with bleeding fingers, caused by gripping the metal bars of the bed due to the intensity of the pain, rather than display weakness in front of the nurses is a bad idea. Stubbornly trying to save his leg from amputation turned out to be an excellent idea.

In 2001, a severe problem was discovered with the blood vessels in his legs, and the doctor recommended amputating one leg above the knee and the other at the ankle. Kuznetsov says he felt as if he had been sentenced to death a second time. He therefore went for alternative treatment to a Russian expert who made him cocktails and ordered him to walk daily. At first he walked just a few meters, with much pain, but eventually he reached five kilometers a day, in all weather. The walking was a fight for life.

The NII initially declared him 70 percent disabled and gave him a commensurate allowance. A year ago, he went back, as required, to the medical committee, which discovered that his legs had improved. However, he was not asked to do anything, and the allowance continued to arrive.

Then, a month ago, the demand arrived that he return the money, for reasons he was unable to understand. The insult was terrible. [...]

Discrimination - Sefardim prefer Ashkenazic schools

YNET reports:

Last Friday, parents from both ultra-Orthodox Beit Yaakov schools in the central city of Elad caused the termination of first grade classes in light of the court order to allow the admission of a Sephardic girl.

Two weeks ago, the Supreme Court demanded that the Beit Yaakov school in the Emanuel Local Council change its code of conduct and erase any apparent discriminatory signs.

Due to the ongoing coverage of this phenomenon, Ynet spoke to MK Avraham Ravitz (United Torah Judaism), who comes from the world of education and who served as the deputy education minister.

Ravitz told Ynet that “the ethnic discrimination stems first and foremost from the desire to maintain the school’s educational atmosphere, which Sephardic parents are also interested in maintaining.

‘Haredi schools are educational institutions’

Ravitz explained that “the secular public does not understand that in the haredi public, school is not just a place in which you study and one plus one equals two. The haredi school is what everyone thought should exist. It is an educational institution.”

Moreover, the MK said, “We educate on internal and external values and there are differences amongst the different ethnic groups.

“Even amongst the Ashkenazis, there is a great distinction between the ethnicities. A person who enters a Hasidic school will not see an inkling of a child from an alternative Hasidic group. Because then, what songs will be sung? Which leaders will they follow? The master of Gur or the master of Vizhnitz?”

He opposed the over-simplification, saying, “There is definitely a difference between Ashkenazim and Sephardim. It is really simple to come and say you need to accept everyone, but that’s not the way it is.”

In actuality, “since there is a very large population of boys and girls from Sephardic homes who within a short period of time became interested in studying with Ashkenazim, there are schools that were swarmed with Sephardic students during admissions period.

“Thus, absurdly, the Sephardic students did not want to attend those schools anymore because the majority turned Sephardic within a short period of time.”

‘They think Ashkenazi education is better'

Supporting the proactive approach Ravitz said, “If we don’t ignore the problem but rather assess it in a real manner and not in the way that bleeding hearts present it, it is likely that people who are actually like me, who have been interested in mixing Ashkenazim and Sephardim to begin with, will be compelled to understand that we must maintain a certain balance in order to keep those institutions attractive next year as well.”[...]

Child Abuse - Calling Police/ Rav Eliashiv shlita

From Yeshurin in an article by R' Tzvi Gartner regarding calling the police in child abuse

Intermarriage - Interview with R' Meir Abehsera

Guest Post: Recipients and Publicity's comment on "Non-Jewish prostitutes - how serious a sin?":

Now we know one important reason that there are so many more Jewish single women and one of the big factors behind the so-called "shidduch crisis" -- it's because Jewish men of all stripes have access to easy-to-have gentile women in the open societies.

I have always been intrigued by an article I read based on an interview with Meir Abehsera, I believe he is a French Sephardic Lubavitcher, but I don't know what happened to him and he's been up to lately, maybe Jersey girl can help me out here. Doing a Google search I see that he is still active but lives in Jerusalem, according to The Jewish Journal "January 10, 2008, The possible Jew" ("Abehsera, it seems, has always loved a good story. Eventually, he developed an urge to write these stories down. So in the mid-1990s, while living in Los Angeles with his wife and seven children, he began writing a personal meditation on his life and ideas inspired by the Lubavitcher Rebbe, which became a book called "The Possible Man." Now, out of Jerusalem, he is putting the finishing touches on his longtime labor of love: a film version of "The Possible Man," as his lasting tribute to the Rebbe. Talk about a possible man: A Sephardic Jew from a famous rabbinic family journeys with the French literary crowd, immerses himself in the curative world of a Japanese mystic and ends up as the cherished prince of a Chasidic movement.") And The Jewish Homemaker Shavous 5757 / June 1997 has this from him: "Abehsera, 63, was born in Morocco to the Abuhatzeira family, a clan known for their tzadikim and mystics, the most famous of whom was Yisrael Abuhatzeira zt"l, the "Baba Sali," leader of the Moroccan Jewish community who died in Israel in 1984. The family moved to France when Meir/Michel was a teenager.")

Anyhow, he gave a brilliant interview in 1995 about the whole mystique of Jews being attracted to non-Jews that I thought I would repost it here. Wishing everyone a Kesiva VeChasima Tova!:

"THE SEDUCTION OF A NATION:

An Interview with Meir Abehsera

Nefesh Magazine (Nefesh - The Jewish Soul Vol 111, No. 1, 1995 / 5755: pages 21 - 23)

(Meir Abehsera, author of Cooking for Life and The Possible Man was born in Morocco and educated in France.)

(Full article at http://www.jpi.org/nefesh.htm )

Assimilation, intermarriage and a plummeting birthrate cause demographers and statisticians to produce gloomy forecasts for the Jewish people. Nefesh interviews macrobiotic figure Meir Abehsera on the spiritual causes of intermarriage.

Nefesh: For quite a while the trend has been for Jews to intermarry. What are the reasons for this?

Meir Abehsera: It's not enough to find a reason, and even if you tell it to a person who wants to intermarry, he won't accept it. Even if he has some guilt and feels some shame, you have to realize he's presently living with this nice non-Jewish woman and doesn't want to hurt her feelings. His is a very human act. Anyone who's going to tell him to separate himself from her is going to seem like a barbarian.

Why is all this intermarriage occurring?

It isn't so easy to marry a Jew. It is seen as a commitment, whereas when you marry a non-Jew you're opting for an easier route. His decision flows with the warmth of his blood, whereas with Judaism you have to tighten your belt and go to work until you are a hundred and twenty years old. [...]

Sages - Torah given on their understanding /Not in Heaven

Chasam Sofer (5:191): A zakein mamre and his colleagues are great scholars who are arguing with the Sanhedrin. Even though the Sanhedrin are great scholars who sit before G d in His house (Temple) – this doesn’t mean of necessity that their analysis is true. It is possible that the zakein mamre’s understanding of the Torah verse is more true… Furthermore it could be that the view of the zakein mamre and those who agree with him can be ten’s of thousands of people while the Sanhedrin is only 71 people. Despite the fact that the zakein mamre might be correct and his view is accepted by the majority of Torah scholars, nevertheless G d decreed that it is the understanding of the Sanhedrin which determines the halacha because of the rule “Torah is no longer in Heaven.” Therefore we ignore a heavenly voice or a prophet who proclaims halacha and not only that but if a prophet proclaims the halacha as a prophet – he is liable to the death penalty because he is obviously a false prophet. That is because G d would not tell a prophet the nature of halachos that had been forgotten. That is why when halachos were forgotten in the period of mourning for Moshe, they were recovered by Azniel ben Kenaz by means of intellectual analysis – and prophecy wasn’t used. Furthermore even that which Azneil ben Kenaz recovered with intellectual analysis – who says that he discovered the truth? The understanding of man is not clear cut and there are multiple ways of interpreting a verse with such techniques as kal v’chomer and the like. The fact is that G d gave us the Torah according to the understanding of the Sanhedrin in order that the halachic disputes should be kept to a minimum. If there were no clear-cut rules of authority then there would be no end to the number of disputes. Therefore G d is forgiving if chas v’shalom an incident occurs in which the Sanhedrin of that generation according to their limited understanding do not comprehend the truth. After careful evaluation for the sake of heaven they issue a ruling in which the majority declare that which is clearly forbidden to be permitted. G d is forgiving even though their ruling has the result that all Jews follow their ruling and eat the forbidden fat. Those that follow this mistaken ruling of the Sanhedrin are not guilty of any sin. That is because the Sanhedrin erred G d is forgiving. Furthermore even if the zaken mamre is strict and does not eat the forbidden fat because he is concerned that the Sanhedrin was wrong and even though it is clear to G d that the halacha is in accord with the zaken mamre’s understanding, the Rambam states that the zakein mamre is liable to the death penalty for disobeying the ruling of the Sanhedrin. This is a very beneficial law which has the effect of preventing disputes. Therefore the zakein mamre should not worry at all as to whether he will be eating forbidden fats when he follows the ruling of the Sanhedrin or that he might end up doing prohibited work on Shabbos..