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." [...]

Abuse - extend statute of limitations?

NYTimes reports

Roman Catholic and Orthodox Jewish officials in New York are mounting an intense lobbying effort to block a bill before the State Legislature that would temporarily lift the statute of limitations for lawsuits alleging the sexual abuse of children.

A perennial proposal that has been quashed in past years by Republicans who controlled the State Senate, the bill is now widely supported by the new Democratic majority in that chamber, and for the first time is given a good chance of passing.

If signed by Gov. David A. Paterson, a longtime supporter, the bill would at minimum revive hundreds of claims filed in recent years against Catholic priests and dioceses in New York, but dismissed because they were made after the current time limit, which is five years after the accuser turns 18. Similar legislation has passed in Delaware and in California, where a 2003 law led to claims that have cost the church an estimated $800 million to $1 billion in damages and settlements.

The rekindled prospects of the New York bill, known as the Child Victims Act, come at a delicate juncture for the Archdiocese of New York, the nation’s flagship see, where Cardinal Edward M. Egan is scheduled to hand over the reins in April. His successor, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of Milwaukee, was so hard hit by settlements for past abuse by priests in that archdiocese that he was forced to put its headquarters up for sale.

“We believe this bill is designed to bankrupt the Catholic Church,” said Dennis Poust, spokesman for the New York State Catholic Conference, a group representing the bishops of the state’s eight dioceses. He said that Cardinal Egan and Bishop Nicholas A. DiMarzio of Brooklyn visited Albany this week to voice their opposition, and that a statewide network of Catholic parishioners had bombarded lawmakers via e-mail.

But while the Catholic Church is leading the opposition, in recent months a loose coalition of disparate groups has also joined the effort. They include leaders of the Hasidic and Sephardic Jewish institutions in Brooklyn, which could face equally costly abuse claims. The New York Civil Liberties Union and the criminal defense bar oppose lifting statutes of limitation as unfair to the accused, who must defend themselves against claims of transgressions decades old.[...]

R' Slifkin's defense of Gedolim

I have been having an exchange with Shlomo M [on this post] who asserts that gedolim are not aware that the majority view is that Chazal made mistakes in Science. I have asserted that they are fully aware of these views but have a different understanding of these critical views of Chazal by major rabbinic figures through the ages. Furthermore Shlomo M. assumes that only a "rationalistic" view is identical with truth - which it is not.

Shlomo M. said...

Rav Soloveitchik had no interest in these matters. Rav Kamenetzky was quite naive and probably thought that it was an aberrant (but legitimate) view. The Lubavitcher Rebbe was totally irrational in these things, he said that Rishonim who said that Chazal were mistaken in science, didn't really believe it and wrote it for kiruv! On the other hand, R. Hirsch and R. Herzog z"l, who had expertise in this area, considered that which you call "R. Avraham ben HaRambam's view" to be the normative view.

Who do you mean by "contemporary Gedolim"? Charedim? Even those who are aware of this shittah, don't realize how widespread it was. They are quite unaware of the rationalist school of thought. (The same is probably true for the view that there is no such thing as gilgulim.)

===============

Daas Torah responded:

In other words you are saying that most if not all contemporary gedolim were totally unaware of these mainstream sources or their ignorance of philosophy prevented them from noticing it. But that R' Slifkin was able to discern that this is in fact the majority view.

Your understanding of gedolim is outrageous. Rav Soleveitchik didn't care?! He wasn't interested in truth!? Rav Yaakov was naive?! the Lubavitcher Rebbe was irrational?? Chas v'shalom. Do you think that Rav Lichenstein would say such a thing or even think it? Does R' Slifkin think that his powers of discernment are greater than all these gedolim?

Thus we are faced with three possibilities. 1) Gedolim don't know how to learn as well as R' Slifkin 2) Gedolim are aware of this view but are afraid to say it because of fear of kanoim 3) there is an alternative way of understanding what these sources mean.

I assume your view is number 1 or 2.

I'll stick with number 3. Obviously gedolim are familiar with these sources but their understanding of them is different than yours.

===============================

I think that additional support for my understanding is contained in an essay of R' Slifkin entitled " In Defense of My Opponents".

"People are certainly entitled to strongly oppose the views of Rambam and any other Torah scholar. This need not be at all at odds with having great respect for Rambam himself. Ramban (Nachmanides) was full of admiration for Rambam, but this did not prevent him from condemning some of Rambam’s ideas in the strongest terms. If a person is entitled to follow Maimonides in adopting his views, why is someone else not entitled to follow Nachmanides in rejecting them? The actual burning of Rambam’s books was a tragedy, but it was not wrong for them to be opposed. It is certainly legitimate for today’s luminaries of the yeshivah world to reject the view of Rambam and others that the Talmud contains errant scientific statements, and to insist upon the absolute infallibility of the Talmud. They may be mistaken in believing in the existence of spontaneously-generating creatures, but they are fully entitled to hold this belief.

Of no less concern to my opponents is that the rationalist approach is not only wrong, but dangerous. In this, they are displaying sensitivity to a very real concern. The zealots who engineered the campaign against my books attained signatures by telling the Gedolim about how my books were causing harm, and about the angelic yeshivah student who read the books, dropped out of yeshivah and went off the derech. As it happens, I investigated the case and discovered that the student in question dropped out of the yeshivah and went to YU! I certainly don’t know of anyone who was harmed by my books, whereas I know of hundreds of people whose faith and Judaism was strengthened by them. But I definitely agree that there are potentially many people who could be harmed by my books. You don’t go into Mea She’arim and start teaching them about dinosaurs and evolution – it will rock the foundations of their world. And if someone has spent his entire life in an insular community, was taught to revere absolutely everything in the Talmud as the word of God, and has no knowledge of science that would lead him to doubt this, it would shake his faith terribly to learn of great Rishonim who said otherwise. Now, I don’t believe that such people ever read any of my books, at least not before they were banned. But I can certainly understand that books which are written by a graduate of mainstream yeshivos and published by a well-known Orthodox publisher, complete with prestigious rabbinic endorsements, can be perceived as targeting such an audience.

Furthermore, the rationalist approach innately involves dangers. It opens a Pandora’s Box; while issues such as evolution and Talmudic science can be resolved, other challenges, such as those from archeology and academic Biblical scholarship, are vastly more problematic. And in the long run, rationalism can have disastrous consequences. As Paul Johnson notes in A History of the Jews, Rambam “laid dangerous eggs which hatched later… he brought a confidence in the compatibility of faith and reason which fitted his own calm and majestic mind but which was in due course to carry Spinoza outside Judaism completely.” Of course, the anti-rationalist approach carries its own dangers – people who have their questions stifled, or who discover that they are being fed false information, will be resentful and rebel – but communities are entitled to choose which risks they wish to deal with.

But even if the Gedolim personally oppose the views of the rationalist Rishonim, don’t they have to respect their right to be taught? Absolutely not. Every community has the right to choose its own educational approach, and to select its own leaders who will make such decisions. The charedi community has the right to choose to submit to the directives of the rabbanim that they consider to be the Gedolim (albeit that there is no basis for asserting that the entire Jewish People is obligated to listen to them). And they have the right to say that they oppose the rationalist school of thought and that they wish to exclude it from the curriculum. When challenged with the question that Rambam’s Guide of the Perplexed contains the same unacceptable views as my books, Rav Elyashiv replied that if someone were to publish a contemporary edition of the Guide that was actually readable, he would equally oppose it. This is a perfectly legitimate and understandable position. In the same way as Rambam had the right to oppose the mystical and superstitious approach that he disapproved of and which was harmful for his community in Egypt, his opponents had the right to oppose his rationalist approach that was unsettling for their communities in France."

Abuser from Meah Shearim convicted

Ynet:

The Jerusalem District Court found Avraham Katz (40) an ultra-Orthodox man from the Meah Shearim neighborhood in the capital guilty of three counts of sodomy and indecent assault against minors.

Monday's somewhat unusual conviction was secured after members of the ultra-Orthodox community filed a police complaint against the man – a rare move by itself in a community which usually deals with such acts within itself.

The indictment against Katz details three cases, which took place in mid 2006, December of 2007 and May of 2008. According to all three accounts, he would approach teenaged boys, lure them to accompany him and once they were alone he would touch them in various ways for his own sexual gratification, sodomizing at least one of his victims as well.[...]

Homosexual Adoption

YNet:

Two years after petitioning court to allow them to adopt child they have been fostering since 1995, Prof. Uzi Even and Dr. Amit Kama can now officially call Yossi their so

The Ramat Gan Family Court set a precedent Tuesday after allowing a gay couple to finally adopt their foster son after 14 years.

Prof. Uzi Even and Dr. Amit Kama have been serving as foster parents to Yossi Even-Kama, 30, since 1995.

"The court finds that all of the stipulations noted in the adoption laws and pertaining to the foster child in question have been duly met," Justice Alisa Miller noted in her ruling. "I hereby grant the adoption decree and state that Yossi Even-Kama is now Uzi Even and Amit Kama's son."

Yossi first arrived at the Even-Kama home in 1995, after being disowned by his family for being a homosexual. Even and Kama soon petitioned the Israeli Social Services to become his foster parents, and when their request was granted they also became Israel's first-ever gay couple to be recognized as a foster family. [...]

Free-will & Compulsion

Rav Tzadok(Tzedkas HaTzadik 43): There are times when a person is presented with such a great test that it is impossible that he should not sin. This is described in Berachos (32a): “How could the son not sin?” This is considered an overwhelming force and the Torah says he is exempt. Also there are times when the yetzer harah seduces with such overwhelming force that it can’t be defeated. This is also described as beyond free‑will (onas). If G‑d twists a person’s heart so that he sins - that is not considered a sin at all since it was G‑d’s will. Look at what it says in Kesubos (51b) in reference to a woman being raped and she protests strongly but at the end she says that the experience was so pleasurable she would have even paid for it. Nonetheless the gemora says she is still permitted to her husband because her lust was aroused so strongly she had no free will. She is not punished even though it is prohibited – because she was forced. However a person cannot testify on himself that he didn’t have free‑will. That is because it is still possible that he did have the power to control his desires. I heard this in regard to Zimri who erred in this matter.