Abuse - Can you ever trust a predator?

Associated Press:

A pastor in this quiet, picturesque New England town opened his doors to a convicted child killer who had served his time but had nowhere to go.

But some neighbors of the Rev. David Pinckney vehemently disagree with the pastor's decision — one even threatening to burn his house down after officials could find no one else willing to take 60-year-old Raymond Guay.

"Politicians think they can dump their trash in our small town," said one neighbor, Jon Morales, whose girlfriend and two children live across an unpaved road from Pinckney's home.

Chichester, a town of about 2,200 residents in south-central New Hampshire, has been in an uproar since the weekend, when police announced that Guay would spend two months with Pinckney's family.

About 40 angry residents protested outside the home Saturday, Merrimack County Sheriff Scott Hilliard said. One protester blustered that he wanted to set it on fire, he said.

Town leaders were expected Tuesday night to ask state and federal officials to remove Guay from town.

Guay already had a criminal record when he was charged in 1973, at age 25, with abducting and murdering a 12-year-old boy in Nashua.[...]

Daas Torah vs Academic Analysis

Rabbi Isaac Hutner's "Daat Torah Perspective" on the Holocaust: A Critical Analysis Tradition, 18(3), Fall 1980 235

Introduction Three years ago The Jewish Observer, a magazine published by the Agudat Israel of America, printed a discourse by Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner Shlita, Dean of Yeshivas Rabbenu Hayyim Berlin and a member of the Moetzes Gedola Ha Torah, the rabbinical council of the Agudah, on the subject of teaching the Holocaust in religious schools (" 'Holocaust'—A Study of the Term and the Epoch It's Meant to Describe," October 1977). This discourse aroused a good deal of discussion and controversy within the Orthodox Jewish community, both inside and outside the pages of The Jewish Observer. Nevertheless, despite the variety of comments, criticism, and clarifications—in particular Rabbi Yaakov Feitman's chazarah clarification essay, "Reviewing a Shiur" (The Jewish Observer, January 1978)—the discourse has not as yet elicited the thorough, rigorous, and dispassionate scrutiny that, in light of its importance and controversial nature, it so evidently deserves. Rabbi Hutner's discourse is important for several reasons. First, Rabbi Hutner is perhaps the leading thinker in the traditional yeshivah world, and a discourse of his on the delicate and important subject of teaching thc holocaust in religious schools is bound to carry great weight. Second, as will become clear in the second part of this article, Rabbi Hutner's discourse indicates that the yeshivah world and the Agudah, of which Rabbi Hutner is an outstanding representative, despite their pragmatic accommodation with the State [...]

To purchase a single download of this article, please click here.
Alternatively, you may choose one of our subscription plans and receive complete access to our entire online archive.

Prohibition of Water - an appeal to reason

JPress - an article by Dr. David Berger

Date: Wednesday, November 17 2004

A halachic ruling prohibiting New York City water was recently formulated by Rav Dovid Feinstein shlita and signed by Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv shlita and Rav Pinchas Sheinberg shlita. It affirms that once copepods can be seen as moving entities in the city's reservoirs, they remain prohibited even when they are not discernible in tap water.

Since water is so basic a substance, it is hardly necessary to point out the seriousness of this ruling. Even in an urban setting, it is easy to envision realistic scenarios involving jeopardy to the health of especially vulnerable observant Jews, not to speak of lesser but nonetheless deeply troubling consequences.

There are rabbinic decisors of stature who disagree with this stringent stance, relying on an attested and respected opinion recorded by earlier authorities that the water is permissible if the organisms in question are not discernible. (This is apart from the ruling by at least one distinguished rabbi that the copepods are permissible because of the halachic status of reservoirs.)

I make no pretenses to any standing in a debate among poskim on such a question, but I believe it is important to underscore certain considerations with the hope they will help encourage the latter authorities - while maintaining the highest reverence for the great rabbis who hold a stringent view - to keep the halachic discourse on this matter alive.

There is strong reason to believe that the presence of these crustaceans in the city water supply is not a new phenomenon - and that the almost universal, instinctive reaction that water imbibed over the years by a host of tzaddikim and talmidei chachamim must be permissible does not deserve to be dismissed as irrelevant.[...]

Internet use by jurors causes mistrials

NYTimes reports: [internet bypasses traditional blocks to information]

Last week, a juror in a big federal drug trial in Florida admitted to the judge that he had been doing research on the case on the Internet, directly violating the judge’s instructions and centuries of legal rules. But when the judge questioned the rest of the jury, he got an even bigger shock.

Eight other jurors had been doing the same thing. The federal judge, William J. Zloch, had no choice but to declare a mistrial, a waste of eight weeks of work by federal prosecutors and defense lawyers.

“We were stunned,” said a defense lawyer, Peter Raben, who was told by the jury that he had been on the verge of winning the case. “It’s the first time modern technology struck us in that fashion, and it hit us right over the head.”

It might be called a Google mistrial. The use of BlackBerrys and iPhones by jurors gathering and sending out information about cases is wreaking havoc on trials around the country, upending deliberations and infuriating judges.[...]

R' Yakov Horowitz - Modesty Squad conviction

JPost reports:

On Sunday, Elhanan Buzaglo was sentenced to four years imprisonment for the vicious beating of a woman nine months ago in Jerusalem's Ma'alot Dafna neighborhood. Buzaglo, a member of a haredi mishmar hazniyut, a self-appointed modesty squad, pleaded guilty as part of a plea bargain struck with the State Attorney's Office.

Buzaglo, who broke into the 31-year-old divorcé's apartment along with four other men, was convicted of receiving $2,000 from the mishmar hazniyut for his role in the attack, which was intended to intimidate her into leaving the predominantly haredi neighborhood. Judge Noam Solberg wrote in his decision that "the punishment must reflect the abhorrence of his acts... and deter him and others like him."

Even though the Jerusalem District Court described the assailants as an "armed militia," Buzaglo, 29, was the only defendant to be convicted in this barbaric attack. According to newspaper reports last October, a series of flaws in the investigation, including a problem with the recording device, enabled Buzaglo's dispatchers - the modesty patrol members - to evade indictments.

From my vantage point, it is unfortunate that all those who participated in the vicious beating of a defenseless woman are not facing long prison sentences. But it is a great step forward and hopefully will mark a turning point in the attitude of law enforcement officials to these thugs.

AS AN EDUCATOR and a proud member of the haredi community, I appeal to all haredi Knesset members to display moxie and genuine leadership by calling a joint press conference where they repudiate all forms of violence and vow to bring to justice all those who perpetrate these types of attacks from this day forward. They should bring all law enforcement resources to bear to bring law and order to the streets of Jerusalem, Beit Shemesh, Bnei Brak and other areas where these people operate. If elected officials cannot commit themselves to protecting innocent women from vicious beatings, they should all resign and be replaced by people who will.

There is no question in my mind that the vast, overwhelming majority of haredi Jews worldwide feel as I do: disgraced and shamed when these events occur, and frustrated that there seems to be little that we can do to remove this stain from our shirts. Many members of our community are reluctant to speak out publicly, fearing that doing so will cause a hillul Hashem, a desecration of God's name. However, I propose that remaining silent in the face of violent and lawless acts perpetrated by individuals purporting to represent Torah values is the greatest hillul Hashem of all.

The time has come for us to speak out, telling our children and students in unequivocal terms, "These people are criminals and sinners - and do not represent us!" Our publications should begin reporting these incidents in the news sections of our papers, condemn them in our editorials and call upon the police to arrest and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law.

We should stop using politically correct terms like "misguided youths" to describe cowards who beat women for sitting in the "wrong" sections of buses and physically assault peaceful citizens who do not dress according to their standards - observant or otherwise. "Misguided youth" implies that they engaged in a prank like a water fight or that they went overboard in pursuit on a noble goal. There is nothing noble about these acts - or the terrorist mentality that glorifies them.

THE VIOLENT MEMBERS of these self-appointed modesty patrols are, in fact, a modern-day version of the Sadducee sect - having long ago veered off the path of our Torah and formed their own cult. They kneel to the idol of intolerance and bring the blood and bruised bodies of their victims on the altar of hatred. They only lack the intellectual honestly to declare themselves a new, nonreligious movement divorced of any rabbinic teaching and tradition.[...]

Reading the texts - Academics vs. Gedolim

In regards to the continuing debate in this post - about what Judaism is and whether an academic can read the texts more accurately than the gedolim - I would like to cite the following view of the Chasam Sofer. Clearly not an academic. I would also like to know whether they are saying that the readings of Dr. Marc Shapiro or some other distinguished academic carries or should carry more weight than a traditional gadol such as Rav Moshe Feinstein or the Chazon Ish?

Chasam Sofer(O.C. 1:56): I saw in a sefer that in previous times it was not the practice to say the beracha on the sun… Nevertheless now that the world has adopted the practice according to the rulings of the Gaonim. And also the Rif cites it as well as the Rambam, Rosh and Tur and in addition it was established by the Beis Yosef in Shulchan Aruch – we should not deviate from this practice. In truth I don’t know what the reason is that women are not accustomed to say this beracha also. It is obviously not based on the reason that the Magen Avraham cites in regards to the beracha on the moon - that women don’t say it because they caused the diminution of the moon which is not relevant here. Nevertheless what the practice is that is what it is and therefore what is not normal practice we don’t add it. Nevertheless this bears further study.

חתם סופר (אורח חיים א:נו): וראיתי בס' שכה"ג שמקדם לא נהגו כלל בברכה זו כן משמע בתשו' משאת בנימין, אולי הוא מטעם הנ"ל, ומ"מ אחרי דנהיגי בה עלמא עפ"י הגאונים הנ"ל וגם הרי"ף מייתי להא דאביי בפשיטות ורמב"ם ורא"ש וטור וקבעו הרב"י בש"ע ממנו אין לזוז. ובאמת לא ידעתי מ"ט לא נהגו נשים לברך ברכה זו ג"כ ולא שייך הכא הטעם שכ' [מג"א רסי' תכ"ו] בברכת הירח שהנשים גורמים מיעוט הירח וזה לא שייך הכא, ומ"מ מה דנהיג נהיג ומה דלא נהיג הבו דלא לוסיף עלה, ועדיין צ"ע

When is a forced act considered volitional?

Meshech Chochma(Shemos 19:17): And they camped under the mountain – this teaches us that the mountain was held over their head to force them to accept the Torah (Shabbos 88a). The mountain is a metaphor meaning that G‑d showed them His glory so clearly and forcefully that their natural free‑will was actually nullified and their souls departed from them as a result of the experience. They were forced to do the right thing - exactly as the angels. They saw without any doubt that the existence of all creation is dependent on the acceptance of Torah. (Rava even notes (Shabbos 88a) that because they had no free‑will when they accepted the Torah this provides a justification to not keep the Torah.) Similarly if a person is pressured to bring a sacrifice until he says, “I want to” (Rosh HaShanna 6a) it is considered a voluntary act. The explanation of why a forced act is considered volitional is given by the Rambam (Hilchos Geirushin 2:20): “We don’t consider an act forced except when a person is forced to do something which is not required by the Torah. But if a person is overcome by his yetzer harah to nullify a mitzva or to do a sin – and then he is beaten until he does the mitzva or avoids the sin – this is not considered that he has been forced to act. But rather he is viewed as originally having been forced by his yetzer harah to do evil… But since he really wants to be a Jew and really wants to do all the mitzvos but is prevented from his evil inclination – by beating him it weakens his yetzer harah so that he can do the right thing…” This is a wonderful analysis and is consistent with what he says in Hilchos Sanhedrin that if a person is forced to have sexual relations where the law requires him to die and not transgress and nevertheless he transgresses – he is liable to the death penalty since he can not get aroused without being interested. In contrast the Rambam notes in Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah that in a situation where he is required to die rather than transgress and yet he transgresses - he is not liable for that sin. Nevertheless he has transgressed the mitzva of sanctifying G‑d name. The explanation for this apparent inconsistency is that all the sins - such as profaning Shabbos or idolatry - if a person does them because he was forced this is not considered to be a voluntary act but rather it was only because of the force and there was not inner desire to sin. However in contrast concerning sexual prohibitions, the man does not get aroused because of the fear of punishment but only because of his lust for sexual intercourse. Therefore he has the ability to restrain his lusts and not get aroused. Thus if he does get aroused it is because he wants to get aroused. Consequently the Rambam asserts that a man’s involvement in sexual sins can only be a willful act and because of this he is liable – even though he was pressured to do it. So even though he only gets aroused because the fear of punishment cancels his fear of G‑d and is now left with his natural lust for sexual intercourse, which is like his lust for his wife – nonetheless this is still called a willful act. The natural desire of a Jew is the inherent desire to fulfill G‑d’s mitzvos. It is only the advice of the yetzer harah (evil inclination) that prevents him from observing the mitzvos. However when he is severely beaten this removes his physical lusts, which had prevented him acting, and he now does the right thing e.g., divorcing his wife or bringing the sacrifice or accepting the Torah. Since he is acting in according with his true inner desires it is considered a fully willful act. However the Ramban (Yevamos 53b) disagrees with this idea that when force removes an impediment to a natural desire it is called a volitional act. The case he discusses involves a man being forced to have intercourse. The Ramban says that when the man is threatened by force to have intercourse - it is not a volitional act. The force causes him to focus exclusively on the lust and not the fact that he is sinning. By removing his awareness of sin it takes away his free‑will so he is exempt from punishment. So too in the case of the forced divorce or forced giving of a sacrifice or the forced acceptance of the Torah at Sinai - they would also not be considered a volitional act. Therefore it is clear according to the Ramban that when a man is forced into intimate contact with a woman – but not threatened – he still has the free‑will not to get aroused. This is different than a raped woman who we say is forced by her aroused lust even to say she wanted the intercourse (Kesubos 51b)… [However we are left with a problem. If the force at Sinai did not result in a volitional act of acceptance, why should the Jews have been punished for sin such as with the destruction of the First Temple which resulted from idolatry, murder and sexual prohibitions?] According to view of the Rambam a child who converts is able to protest against the conversion when he grows up. However even if he stops being a Jew he still remains a ger toshav. The Ohr Someach (Hilchos Issurei Bi’ah 12:6) explains that in the case of Sinari - as the gemora points out – they had a valid excuse not to keep the Torah because they had been forced. Nevertheless they would still be considered as ger toshav. That is the reason that in the First Temple they were punished for idolatry, murder and violating sexual prohibitions. Even though they were not technical obligated to keep the Torah as Jews, nevertheless they had the status of ger toshav. It wasn’t until the time of Mordechai and Esther - which was after the destruction of the First Temple - when they fully accepted the Torah of their own volition.

Abuse - Parents protest plea bargain

JPost reports:

Preschool teachers Sami and Leah Tubias confessed and were convicted of abuse on Sunday in the Jerusalem District Court as part of a plea bargain. However, parents of children they abused in Jerusalem's Gilo neighborhood were anything but satisfied with the conviction.

"To our great sorrow, despite the determined opposition of the parents and the Movement for the Safety of the Young Child, the plea bargain was signed and the clauses regarding assault were removed, even though there is video documentation of terrifying instances of assault by the couple," wrote Lilly Boxman in the name of the Movement for the Safety of the Young Child and a number of parents whose children were enrolled in the Gilo preschool.

"The plea bargain is absurd and wrong and mostly does a great injustice to the parents, the children, and anyone who plans on sending their children to preschool," she wrote.

According to the final indictment, "the accused psychologically abused the children, while hitting children in the preschool from time to time in front of their friends, yelling, threatening and creating terror among the children."

The abuse, first documented on camera by Rafi Ginat in his popular Kol Botek investigative television series, included multiple incidents of physical violence. The indictment included one instance in which Leah Tubias grabbed a four-year-old boy by the arm, waved him in the air and then forcefully sat him in a chair in front of the others.[...]

Rav Sternbuch - All about Amalek

Conversion - Schism between Modern Orthodox Rabbis

Recipients and Publicity - see "Attention Please! New challenger to the establishe...": for additional comments

Rabbi Avi Weiss and the left wing of Modern Orthodoxy versus the RCA on geirus reveals schism among American Modern Orthodox rabbis.

It's not just about Rabbi Bomzer.

This must result in two official American Modern Orthodox rabbinates which already exhists de facto, with Rabbis Avi Weiss, Saul Berman, (of Yeshiva Chovevei Torah), Marc Angel and Shlomo Riskin heading the left wing versus the Centrists headed by Rabbi Hershel Shechter and the YU and RCA establishment that has ties to the Israeli Chief Rabbinate.

"RCA Backtracks On Conversion Policy

by Rabbi Avi Weiss

A year ago, in a Jewish Week dialogue of Opinion pieces, I criticized the Rabbinical Council of America’s (RCA) new conversion standards [see "Agreement elevates the elite, weakens rabbis in the trenches" article below] as it “scrutinizes” conversions performed before their new system was put into place.

Writing in defense of the RCA, the chairman of its Geirus (Conversion), Policies and Standards (GPS) committee, strenuously objected to my position, stating that “it is important to emphasize that nothing in this system is designed to change anyone’s previous status as a convert” (The Chief Rabbinate - RCA Deal: Two Views,” March 7, 2008).

I know now firsthand that I was, unfortunately, correct, as the RCA has refused to affirm a conversion that I, together with two other rabbis, performed. To make matters worse, the RCA made its ruling without notifying or consulting me or any other member of the converting Beit Din (Rabbinic Tribunal).

The case involved a young woman who attended my synagogue’s supplementary Jewish Youth Encounter Program (JYEP). This is not an unusual case as, over the years, the JYEP has had a profound impact on the religious lives of hundreds of young men and women. Subsequent to the conversion, this woman fell in love with a man whose rabbi turned to the RCA to validate her conversion. The RCA refused to do so, insisting that for its validation, the young women needs to convert once again. This refusal to validate without reconversion is being interpreted by the community, in the current climate (created by the GPS), as an invalidation of this convert’s Jewish status. [... ]

Past 2008 article from Jweekly.com:

"Agreement elevates the elite, weakens rabbis in the trenches

Friday, March 7, 2008 | by rabbi marc angel & rabbi avraham weiss | opinions

The Chief Rabbinate of Israel and the Rabbinical Council of America have concluded an agreement related to conversion that will allow the two groups to work together. This solves a problem that reached its peak when Israel's Sephardic chief rabbi, Shlomo Amar, announced in April 2006 that he would no longer automatically recognize conversions performed by rabbis belonging to the RCA, the main union of Orthodox rabbis in America. [...]

Abuse - sex offender kills despite GPS monitor

CNN reports:

Darrin Sanford, 30, was one of several homeless people living near the field in an abandoned home slated for demolition, police said.

He was convicted in 1998 of communicating with a minor for immoral purposes and luring minors with sexual motivation; he was sentenced to probation, said a Clark County sheriff's report. When he was released from jail in January, following a November probation violation, Sanford was fitted with a global positioning tracking unit on his ankle, according to the Washington Department of Corrections. Learn more about the device Sanford wore »

Sanford was wearing the device seven weeks later when he tried to rape Licy before beating and stabbing her in a field a couple of blocks from the street where she lived, according to police. [...]

Obama gets low grades from Economists

Wall Street Journal reports

U.S. President Barack Obama and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner received failing grades for their efforts to revive the economy from participants in the latest Wall Street Journal forecasting survey.

Economists Give Obama an "F"

In striking contrast to President Obama's popularity with the public, a new Wall Street Journal survey of economists gives the president and his treasury secretary failing grades. WSJ's Phil Izzo and Kelly Evans discuss.

The economists' assessment stands in stark contrast with Mr. Obama's popularity with the public, with a recent Wall Street Journal/NBC poll giving him a 60% approval rating. A majority of the 49 economists polled said they were dissatisfied with the administration's economic policies.

On average, they gave the president a grade of 59 out of 100, and although there was a broad range of marks, 42% of respondents rated Mr. Obama below 60. Mr. Geithner received an average grade of 51. Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke scored better, with an average 71.

Charts and Full Results

The economists, many of whom have been continually surprised by the depth of the downturn, also pushed back yet again their forecasts for when a recovery would begin. On average, they expect the downturn to end in October. Last month, they said the bottom would arrive in August. They estimate that U.S. gross domestic product will continue to contract in the first half of this year, with slow growth returning in the third quarter.

Economists were divided over whether the $787 billion economic-stimulus package passed last month is enough. Some 43% said the U.S. will need another stimulus package on the order of nearly $500 billion. Others were skeptical of the need for stimulus at all.

However, economists' main criticism of the Obama team centered on delays in enacting key parts of plans to rescue banks. "They overpromised and underdelivered," said Stephen Stanley of RBS Greenwich Capital. "Secretary Geithner scheduled a big speech and came out with just a vague blueprint. The uncertainty is hanging over everyone's head."

Mr. Geithner unveiled the Obama administration's plans Feb. 10, but he offered few details, and stocks sank on the news. The Dow Jones Industrial Average is down almost 20% since the announcement, as multiple issues have weighed on investors' confidence. The Treasury secretary has since appeared before Congress and offered more specifics but has said action on key parts of the plan still is weeks away.

About the Survey

The Wall Street Journal surveys a group of 54 economists throughout the year. Broad surveys on more than 10 major economic indicators are conducted every month. Once a year, economists are ranked on how well their forecasts have fared. For prior installments of the surveys, see: WSJ.com/Economist.

"We have taken an unprecedented level of action toward economic recovery, accomplishing in weeks what took other countries years to do," Treasury spokesman Isaac Baker said. "While Wall Street and investors were disappointed when they didn't get a sweeping bank bailout, we've laid out a plan to stabilize the financial system while protecting the taxpayer and ensuring government funds are spent wisely. This crisis was years in the making, and it will take time to solve." [...]