Halachasizing of lashon harah: Mussar principles versus halachic rules:

The following post on Hirhurim has a link to Dr. Benny Brown's paper regarding the transformation of lashon harah - but it applies also to other matters. As affirmation of his basic thesis - my son told me that the Rosh Yeshiva of Slobodka Yeshiva in Bnei Brak told him that the Chazon Ish had said, "Lashon Harah is not a complicated topic. All one needed to remember was not to use speech to hurt others."

 This is also reflected in Rav Sternbuch's teshuva regarding a principal's refusal to listen to lashon harah regarding child abuse as well as the Rav Chaim Ozer's refusal to sign the Chofetz Chaim's pledge never to speak lashon harah.


Hirhurim

Audio Roundup CXXXIX
March 31, 2011

by Joel Rich

Dr. Benny Brown’s paper (pdf link fixed) concerning the Chofetz Chaim’s “halachasizing” approach to lashon hara resonated with some of my lay person’s musings on the subject. My Hirhurim comment prior to reading the paper was “llimud v’lo lmaaseh I always go back to the same question – why was there no real compendium on lashon hara rules until the C”C?

Increased awareness of sexual abuse amongst Orthodox women

Haaretz

Last Wednesday, the day after former President Moshe Katsav was sentenced, Tirza Frenkel, vice-principal of Tehilla, a state-religious girls' high school in Jerusalem, was planning to discuss the case in her 12th-grade civics class. But even earlier, she says, students stopped her in the hall and asked her to address the matter.

Frenkel has a reputation at the school for devoting a lot of attention to sexual abuse, in general, and to the Moshe Katsav affair in particular. The issue preoccupied students throughout the trial (which began in the summer of 2009 ), she says, and discussions were held in classrooms at high points in the proceedings, such as after the verdict.

"I used the case in civics classes to describe court proceedings, to explain what a plea bargain is and why Katsav turned it down - and to discuss sexual abuse," Frenkel says. "In Orthodox parlance, we talk about how every woman was created in the divine image, and therefore has a right to her body and must not be violated."

She told her students that "the personal message to all of you is that you has the right to safeguard your body and to do with it as you see fit, and nobody has the right to demand anything else." [...]

Paying for dialysis when it doesn't prolong life?

NYTimes

Of all the terrible chronic diseases, only one — end-stage kidney disease — gets special treatment by the federal government. A law passed by Congress 39 years ago provides nearly free care to almost all patients whose kidneys have failed, regardless of their age or ability to pay.

But the law has had unintended consequences, kidney experts say. It was meant to keep young and middle-aged people alive and productive. Instead, many of the patients who take advantage of the law are old and have other medical problems, often suffering through dialysis as a replacement for their failed kidneys but not living long because the other chronic diseases kill them.

Kidney specialists are pushing doctors to be more forthright with elderly people who have other serious medical conditions, to tell the patients that even though they are entitled to dialysis, they may want to decline such treatment and enter a hospice instead. In the end, it is always the patient’s choice.

One idea, promoted by leading specialists, is to change the way doctors refer to the decision to forgo dialysis. Instead of saying that a patient is withdrawing from dialysis or agreeing not to start it, these specialists say the patient has chosen “medical management without dialysis.” [...]

Does major change always require causing a stink?

Just had a discussion regarding the tactics to use in bringing about change in a community. Can one act with derech eretz and a concern with truth or is the only effective way to be rude and abrasive and to have a blatant disregard of truth? The point of contention are the views of Saul Alinsky.


NYTimes

Saul Alinsky, the Chicago activist and writer whose street-smart tactics influenced generations of community organizers, most famously the current president, could not have been more clear about which side he was on. In his 1971 text, “Rules for Radicals,” Mr. Alinsky, who died in 1972, explains his purpose: “What follows is for those who want to change the world from what it is to what they believe it should be. ‘The Prince’ was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power. ‘Rules for Radicals’ is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.” [...]

Make yourself look as big and scary as possible:

For an elementary illustration of tactics, take parts of your face as the point of reference; your eyes, your ears, and your nose. First the eyes; if you have organized a vast, mass-based people’s organization, you can parade it visibly before the enemy and openly show your power. Second the ears; if your organization is small in numbers, then do what Gideon did: conceal the members in the dark but raise a din and clamor that will make the listener believe that your organization numbers many more than it does. Third, the nose; if your organization is too tiny even for noise, stink up the place.

Abuse: Yosef Kolko case - Should beis din's social worker have to testify?

APP

A former yeshiva teacher and camp counselor spoke in detail about sexual abuse accusations against him to a social worker hired by a rabbinical council months before the case was brought to law enforcement, according to testimony in Superior Court Wednesday.

Now, an assistant prosecutor wants the social worker to be able to testify against the teacher, Yosef Kolko, at upcoming criminal proceedings regarding accusations that he molested a boy he met while a camp counselor.

Kolko's attorney, Michael E. Wilbert, argues that his client, as a patient, is entitled to confidentiality.

Sexual abuse case sheds light on Emmanuel’s ethnic tensions

JPost

A sexual abuse case recently made public is shedding some new light on the development of the ethnic tensions that exploded in Emmanuel last year.

Channel 2 reported on Monday that the principal of Emmanuel's Ashkenazi elementary school for boys, Rabbi Moshe Nussboim, is currently on trial behind closed doors in the Kfar Saba Magistrate's Court on suspicion of sexually abusing three boys from Sephardi families in his school between the years 2002-2008.

The Emmanuel affair took off in 2007, when a partition was erected in the middle of the local Beit Ya'acov girls' school building to separate between girls in a "hassidic track," composed of primarily Slonimer Hassidim, and the rest of the girls.

A High Court petition by Yoav Laloum and his Noar Kahalacha NGO charging ethnic discrimination led to the court ordering that the wall be taken down, and the Independent Education Center, which runs the school, obeyed.[....]

4 Palestinians falsely accused of raping 11-year-old

YNET

Police released four Palestinians residing illegally in Israel, who were arrested Tuesday on suspicion that they had raped an 11-year old Israeli boy, when it turned out the latter had been lying.

The four men denied the allegations from the first, prompting police investigators to question the boy again before a scheduled lineup. During the second round of questioning, the boy admitted that some of the claims he had made were false, and also supplied a different description of the men

Two opposing views: Must you listen to rabbis to violate the Torah?

From Daas Torah - translation copyrighted

The following shows that the commonly accepted view of rabbinic authority is based on the Sifre which is not the authoritative view since it is rejected by  the Bavli & Yerushalmi and is not mentioned by Rambam and Shulchan Aruch.

Ramban (Devarim 17:11): Left and Right.  Rashi explains that even if the Sanhedrin tell you that right is left or left is right – [you must obey them]. Meaning that even if you are certain that the Sanhedrin has erred and it is as obvious to you as the difference between your right and left – you still must comply with their understanding of the Torah. In other words you can’t argue, “How can I eat that  which is prohibited by the Torah or how can I execute this person when I know he has not transgressed?” Rather your attitude must be, “The absolute obedience to the rulings of the Sanhedrin is what G d has commanded me and I must observe the mitzvos exactly as the Sanhedrin (which is in G d’s presence in the Temple) says. The Torah was given to me according to their understanding – even if they err.”  This is what happened when R’ Yehoshau had a dispute with the Sanhedrin as to what day was Yom Kippur. R’ Gamliel the head of the Sanhedrin ordered R’ Yehoshua to appear before him on the day that he thought was Yom Kippur (Rosh HaShanna 25a). the necessity for this mitzva is very great. That is because the Torah was given to us in writing and it is known that people don’t think identically in all matters. Therefore it would be natural for disputes over what the Torah means to continually multiply and it would end up that there would be many Torahs instead of one. That is why this verse tells you that one must obey the Sanhedrin which convenes in G d’s presence in the Temple – in everything they say concerning the understanding of the Torah. There is no difference in the requrement to obey whether this Torah understanding is part of the Tradition which goes back what G d told Moshe or what their understanding of the meaning or intent of a Torah verse.  This requirement to accept their Torah understanding is because the Torah was in fact given to us according to their understanding. Therefore they must be obeyed even if their view contrasts with your understanding as left contrasts with right and surely if you agree with their understanding. That is because G d’s spirit is on those who serve in His Temple and He does not desert His pious ones. G d always protects them from error and mistake. The Sifri (Shoftim 154) says that you must obey them even if appears that they have reversed right with left and left with right.

Yad HaMelech (Hilchos Maamrim 1:2): …It is clear that according to the understanding of Rashi and the Mizrachi the intent of the Sifre [that one must listen to the rabbis even when it apparently involves Torah prohibitions] is against the view of the Babylonian Talmud and also against the Yerushalmi. Furthermore since the Rambam omits mention of this Sifre therefore we have only the halachic view that is explicit in the Bavli and Yerushalmi.  Thus all halachic rulings which appear to contradict the words of the Torah e.g., eating prohibited fats or killing an innocent man – irrespective as to the authority of the rabbi giving the ruling they are not to be accepted. It is stated explicitly in the Yerushalmi and also the Bavli that if someone errs in this matter and thinks it is an obligation to listen to these rabbis to eat fat prohibited by the Torah because he thinks it is a mitzva to always obey the rabbis – this individual is obligated to bring a sacrifice as he would be for eating any Torah prohibited food in error.
  
*** Even Ramban might hold Sifre only applies if  Sanhedrin rejects your view ***

Rav Ovadia Yosef (Yabiah Omer Y.D. 6:7.2): … The Yerushalmi (Horious 1:1) states, that you might think even if they tell you that “right” is “left” and that “left” is “right” that they must be obeyed. Therefore the Torah says that you should only obey them if they say that “right” is “right” and “left” is “left”. But this is the opposite of the Sifre [that you must obey them even if they tell you that “right” is “left” and “left” is “right”…. However according to the explanation of the Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos Shoreh I) and those who support him [Ran Sanhedrin 87a] there is a reconcilation. According to the Ramban as long as the dissenting view has not been directly presented to the Sanhedrin [or Rabbinic authority] then he must refuse to eat that which the Sanhedrin insists is kosher. [If he eats food that he regards as unkosher because he is relying on the Sanhedrin he must bring a korbon] However once he has directly discussed the issue with the Sanhedrin and they have rejected his view [despite his best efforts] then the halacha becomes that he must obey them [even if he is still convinced he is right.]

Riva (Devarim 17:11): Don’t deviate from what they tell you left or right – Rashi explains,“You must obey them even if they tell you right is left and left is right and surely if they tell you right is right and left is left.”  This is an astounding statement. Are we really required to listen to a rabbi who tells you that something that is impure is pure or that something which is prohibited really permitted?! The answer is that this command does not concern Torah obligations but rather Rabbinic decrees. Thus “the right that is really left” is referring to decrees such as not doing the Torah mitzva of blowing shofar because of the concern of profaning Shabbos. The meaning of “the left that is really right” is referring to decrees such as prohibiting marriage to someone who is permitted by the Torah.

Why Experts Get the Future Wrong

NYTimes

What does the future hold? To answer that question, human beings have looked to stars and to dreams; to cards, dice and the Delphic oracle; to animal entrails, Alan Green­span, mathematical models, the palms of our hands. As the number and variety of these soothsaying techniques suggest, we have a deep, probably intrinsic desire to know the future. Unfortunately for us, the future is deeply, intrinsically unknowable.

This is the problem Dan Gardner tackles in “Future Babble: Why Expert Predictions Are Next to Worthless, and You Can Do Better.” Gardner, a Canadian journalist and author of “The Science of Fear,” takes as his starting point the work of Philip Tetlock, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania. Beginning in the 1980s, Tetlock examined 27,451 forecasts by 284 academics, pundits and other prognosticators. The study was complex, but the conclusion can be summarized simply: the experts bombed. Not only were they worse than statistical models, they could barely eke out a tie with the proverbial dart-throwing chimps.

The most generous conclusion Tetlock could draw was that some experts were less awful than others. Isaiah Berlin once quoted the Greek poet Archilochus to distinguish between two types of thinkers: “The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.” Berlin admired both ways of thinking, but Tetlock borrowed the metaphor to account for why some experts fared better. The least accurate forecasters, he found, were hedgehogs: “thinkers who ‘know one big thing,’ aggressively extend the explanatory reach of that one big thing into new domains” and “display bristly impatience with those who ‘do not get it,’ ” he wrote. Better experts “look like foxes: thinkers who know many small things,” “are skeptical of grand schemes” and are “diffident about their own forecasting prowess.” [...]

Spiritual leader of Syrian Jewish community enters guilty plea

YNet

The spiritual leader for the Syrian Jewish community in the United States has entered a guilty plea in a massive federal corruption probe in New Jersey.

Rabbi Saul Kassin of Brooklyn, New York, pleaded guilty in a Trenton federal courtroom Monday to one count of unauthorized money transmitting.

The 89-year-old is the chief rabbi of the Syrian Jewish community in Brooklyn and New Jersey.
 
Kassin was among five rabbis arrested in July 2009 and charged with money laundering using charitable non-profit groups they or their synagogues controlled.

 

Emmanuel: allegations that sex abuse is behind segregation

Channel 2 news Hat tip Joel Katz

Here's a heads-up on a Israel Channel 2 TV program "360" investigative report.

what was really behind the segregation in Emmanuel's school.

360 reports that the origin of the conflict involved allegations of sexual abuse by rabbi in Emmanuel.

The allegations created conflict between the 'ba'aleh teshuva' population and the haredi population.

Only later did the segregation take place.

Channel 2 http://reshet.ynet.co.il/Shows/360/ Monday 21:00 March 28, 2011.

Joel

Joel Katz
Religion and State in Israel
http://religionandstateinisrael.blogspot.com/