Free-Rider Problem - Collateral damage of receiving free services

Guest Post by David Held (Learned at Ner Israel and Yeshivas Beis Yisroel when it was in Bayit Vegan and is an alumnus of Georgetown University Law Center.  He lives in a suburb of New York City with his family.  His parents have been members of Beth Jacob in Atlanta for over 40 years and he considers himself most influenced by R’ Emanuel Feldman of Beth Jacob, R’ Ezra Neuberger of Ner Israel and several talmidim of Rav Wolbe with whom he came into contact when learning in Israel. ]  

This is an important article, addressing an issue which is largely ignored within the Orthodox community. Despite the multiple justifications for the free services that the government or our community provides for those who can't afford it or don't have income from choice - there is a decided price that comes with the free services. This is a discussion of the price - spiritually, psychological and community unity.

Recently a Working Orthodox Man in Teaneck 

Proposal to condition funding of public schools according to amount of violence

Maariv

התגובה החרדית לדרישה החילונית לתקצוב מוסדות החינוך החרדי בהתאם לשעות לימודי הליבה בבתי הספר: הצעת חוק חדשה של ח״כ מאיר פרוש תתנה את תקציב בתי הספר החילונים בהתאם לרמת האלימות בבתי הספר. 

כוונת התוכנית שהגיש פרוש, לדבריו, היא להביא למיגור האלימות של תלמידי בתי הספר.

בהצעת החוק נכתב כי התקציב המועבר לבתי הספר על ידי משרדי הממשלה והרשויות ייקבע על פי מדרג האלימות הקיימת על ידי תלמידי בית הספר. כך, ככל שתהיה יותר אלימות כך ייפחת התקציב העומד לרשות בית הספר, עד כדי ביטול מוחלט של תקציב בית הספר.  

לדברי ח"כ פרוש, האלימות ההולכת וגוברת בקרב תלמידי בתי הספר הפכה זה מכבר לבעיה חברתית. "אצל כל המומחים העוסקים בחקר האלימות בקרב תלמידים שוררת תמימות דעים שתמונת המצב המצטיירת מהממצאים היא קשה ומדאיגה", אמר.

עוד הוסיף כי העובדה שמערכת החינוך מתקשה לטפל בבעיות האלימות בצורה אפקטיבית, הביאה אותו להגיש הצעת חוק, לפיה בתי הספר יתוקצבו על פי המדרג האלימות של תלמידי בית הספר. ״המטרה היא  לעודד ולתמרץ את המנהלים והמורים להילחם בתופעה ולהביא בהכרח לצמצום האלימות בבתי הספר ומחוצה לו".

Abused Children May Get Unique Form of PTSD

time

Child abuse scars not just the brain and body, but, according to the latest research, but may leave its mark on genes as well.

The research, which was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, suggests that abused children who develop post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may experience a biologically distinct form of the disorder from PTSD caused by other types of trauma later in life. [...]

“In PTSD with a history of child abuse, we found a 12-fold higher [level] of epigenetic changes,” says Mehta.  In contrast, people who experienced trauma later in life showed genetic effects that tended to be short-lived, and did not permanently alter the function of the genes. [...]

Stealing in order to help others - is it permitted?

In a previous Post  I mentioned the view of Rav Elchonon Wasserman that the prohibitions regarding bein adam l'chavero only apply where the act is destructive and meant to harm. He learns this from the Rambam (Hilchos Chovel 5:1) which states that hitting another is only prohibited if done derech nitzoiyon (strife or vanquishing). He says this rule applies not only to hitting but lashon harah and hatred.

A significant problem with making this sweeping generalization comes in the area of theft. Can a person steal something for a joke or with intent to pay - without any desire to harm the victim? More relevant to the issue of education - can a teacher or parent take away a student or child's possession - for the sake of chinuch or to prevent sin? Can you take away a neighbor's computer to prevent him/her from using the internet? Can you take away someone smartphone solely because you think it is for the person's benefit not to have it - even if you don't pay for it?

Rabbi Yehuda Hertzl Henkin (Techumin Volume 8) has a long article on this and concludes that despite being a common practice - there is no justification for taking things from another person against their will. 

Bava Metzia (61b):Why did the Torah (Vayikra 19:11) need to explicitly prohibit stealing [since  we learn the prohibition of causing financial loss from ribis and fraud while the prohibition of stealing in the Ten Commandments refers to kidnapping a person – Rashi]? The answer is as it was taught: One cannot steal just to aggravate [Rashi] another nor can one steal even if he intended to repay double for it [because he wants to give the victim something but he knows he won’t accept and therefore he uses stealing as a pretext to give him money – Rashi].

Rabbeinu Yonah (Shaarei Teshuva 3:85):  Do not steal or suppress or lie (Vayikra 19:11). Our Sages (Bava Metzia 61b) state that “not stealing” means if it it is only to upset the person. In other words a person should not say I will steal his possession in order to upset him and I will take while he is watchin and I will warn him that he needs to be more careful in watching his possession and then I will return it to him. Similarly it is prohibited to steal possessions from another’s house and use them and then return them. Nor should you secretly take your own possessions from a thief after they were stolen so that you don’t look like a thief. 

An apparently refutation of this is in the following gemora - but the Meiri says it is not a problem

Bava Basra(16a): Rava asked the meaning of “The blessing of him that was ready to perish came upon me...(Job 29:13)....This verse alludes to the fact that Job used to steal the fields of orphans [and the orphans were convinced that they had lost the land – Rashi] and he would improve the fields and then give them back.

Meiri (Bava Basra 16a):  There are sins which are done with good intentions and nevertheless they are not permitted. But this seems to be contradicted by this gemora where Job is praised because he would steal land from the poor and orphans and improve it and then return it. That is because Job was well known as such a tzadik – that even though he didn’t explain this reason – every knew that was his intent in taking the land. The gemora describes this as theft only as a general term of taking property of others – but according to my understanding it did not mean to say it was a sinful taking of the land. ... We can see from these cases that even when a person intends to do good and that should permit the act – nevertheless we are told that good intent is not enough to permit stealing in any form even if it is public knowledge what you are doing. That is because this gemora explicitly said not to steal even if you intend to pay back double. This requires further clarification. Nevertheless even the great Rabbis indicated that it is prohibited. Nevertheless the major difficulty has been removed regarding Job.

[I will be adding sources to this post regarding this serious exception to Rav Wasserman's assertion and possibly other exceptions.]

Lag B’Omer: An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5Towns Jewish Times     The Rema, Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 493:2) writes that on Lag B’Omer we engage slightly in simcha. Observing Lag B’Omer is a serious matter. The Magen Avraham cites the Kavanos HaArizal that discusses a certain individual who had the habit of reciting “Nachem” every day. He continued to do so on Lag B’Omer as well. For doing so he was punished. We see, therefore, that one should take the words of the Rema quite seriously.

A number of reasons are cited by Torah authorities for commemorating Lag B’Omer:

• It commemorates that the students of Rabbi Akiva ceased dying during this day, although the deaths persisted between Pesach and Shavuos. (Shela, Pesachim 525)

• This day is the yahrzeit of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai, who revealed the inner secrets of the Torah. (Chayei Adam, Moadim 131:11)

• This is the day that Rabbi Akiva granted ordination to his five students, among them Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. They did not die in the plague that struck Rabbi Akiva’s other students. (Pri Chadash, O.C. 493)

• It also commemorates the manna, which began to fall on this day after the Bnei Yisrael left Egypt. (Responsa Chasam Sofer, Y.D. #233, “Omnam yadati”) [...]

Rabbi Michael Broyde: Is his attribution to Lubavitcher Rebbe genuine?

Guest Post by Dr. Ben Bradley. In the context of the recent controversy about Rabbi Dr Michael Broyde and a letter by an apparently non-existent talmid chacham (the source of which has not been confirmed), which buttressed Rabbi Broyde's halachic arguments, I thought it important to put to following information in the public domain.

I am a family physician and as such I attended a talk for doctors and medical students in London in 2009 by Rabbi Broyde. Amongst other issues he discussed opinions in halacha about the breadth of the permission to break Shabbos for medical purposes and mentioned some very lenient opinions although only in general terms with no specific sources or details. In particular he mentioned a letter of the Lubavitcher Rebbe in which he gave permission to sit an entrance exam for medical school on Shabbos. I was taken aback as this was well outside any heter I was aware of. I asked one of my rebbeim, a Lubavitcher talmid chacham with a vast familiarity with Chabad sources, about this. He was unaware of such a letter, thought that if it existed it would be unlikely that he didn't know about it, and further thought it highly improbable that the Rebbe would write such a thing for a variety of reasons.

I therefore emailed Rabbi Broyde asking where to find the source. He replied briefly that he didn't think it had been published, so I asked again where I could at least find reference to it. I had no further response from him and thought little further about it until now, since an evidently non-genuine letter has come to light giving halachic support for Dr Broyde's opinions. Now I am almost certain that this letter mentioned at his shiur does not exist and think this should be made public.

If anyone can find valid reference to this opinion of the Lubavitcher Rebbe anywhere at all I will be pleased to retract this posting.

Dr Ben Bradley

Ethiopian Halacha sefer arouses controversy

Maariv

לפני קרוב לשנה יצא הספר "מסיני לאתיופיה". הספר הנחשב לראשון מסוגו הוא מעין קיצור שולחן ערוך של מסורת יהודי אתיופיה: ספר הלכה מתומצת המחולק לפי נושאים. אלא שמאז שהמסה הגיחה לאוויר העולם היא מסעירה את הקהילה האתיופית בארץ ובחו"ל. נגד מחבר הספר, הרב שרון שלום, מתנהל מסע השמצות בטענה שחיבורו מגדף ומחרף את קודשי ישראל ומתיר איסורים הלכתיים כמו איסור נגיעה ולחיצת יד לאישה, ביטול דיני מוקצה בשבת, ביטול חלק מהלכות נידה, כלי זמר ביום הכיפורים וטלטול כסף בשבת.

לפני כמה חודשים שיגרה קבוצה של רבנים אתיופים שהתקרבו לזרם החרדי מכתב חריף לכל המועצות הדתיות, ובו הם מאשימים בכפירה את יוצר החיבור התורני. למכתב הזה צורף סרטון שבו מדבר הרב הראשי לישראל, הרב שלמה עמאר, התוקף את המחבר.

מנגד, רבים בקהילה האתיופית מברכים על הספר ורואים בו פריצת דרך ומקור לגאווה, חיבור מכונן שמעלה על הכתב לראשונה באופן מסודר ונגיש את מסורת אתיופיה והלכותיה. לא מעט רבנים אורתודוקסים ואנשי מחקר מעלים על נס את הספר כאחת היצירות התורניות המשמעותיות ביותר בשנים האחרונות. רק לאחרונה המועמד למשרת הרב הראשי לישראל, הרב דוד סתיו, ביקר את הרבנות הראשית, שלדבריו איימה לשלול את ההסמכה לרבנות של מחבר הספר: "הבן אדם מקבל מכתב מהרבנות הראשית ששוללים ממנו את ההסמכה, הוא בסך הכל הביא מנהגים של יהדות אתיופיה של אלף שנה, אלפיים שנה", הזדעק הרב סתיו באחת מהרצאותיו לאחרונה.

הרב שרון שלום, לשעבר זאודה טספאי, הוא תלמיד חכם במובן הרחב של המילה: בוגר ישיבת ההסדר בגוש עציון, סר"ן במילואים ודוקטורנט לפילוסופיה יהודית באוניברסיטת בר-אילן. הוא רב בארגון רבני צהר, בעל הסמכה לרבנות ומתפקד כרב בית הכנסת האשכנזי "קודשי ישראל" של ניצולי השואה בקריית גת. עד לא מזמן היה הרב שלום מחתן ועורך חופות בישראל, אלא שבעקבות המכתב שנשלח למועצות הדתיות נאסר עליו לחתן בחלק מהמקומות, אף  שהוא מחזיק בתעודת הסמכה מטעם הרבנות המאשרת לו לערוך חופה וקידושין.

Guidance for Chareidim facing draft

   קונטרס לא אירא רע - הדרכה לבחורים ואברכים בנוגע גזירות הגיוס

This is basically propaganda - not realistic advice. Not sure whether it is to encourage the young men to not be cooperative or to try and scare the army that the draft will produce serious resistance. From the news items I have seen, it is viewed as further proof  that chareidim are nuts.

Rav Triebitz: Next meeting is planned in a week or two

Given the succcess of our recent group discussion of Rav Meir Triebitz regarding the issue of empathy, we are planning on having another one. This might lead to re-establishing the Think Tank Group we had several years ago. We plan on dealing with issues of the dynamics of halacha as applied to our community and education. Hopefully it will be in the next week or two in Jerusalem - probably in Har Nof. If you are interested in participating please send me an email - yadmoshe@gmail.com

We will be dealing not only with the past as found in the halachic literature  - but also indentifying what is happening now. Furthermore we will be defining goals for our community and the means that encourage their successful attainment.

Bein adam l'chavero sins - only if done to hurt & vanquish the other

Considering this is the period of Sefira, it is appropriate to talk about bein adam l'chavero sins. One important consideration started with the question that since hitting another is a doreissa sin - why is it permitted to hit children for chinuch which is only a rabbinic mitzva?  The basic  prohibition of hitting is described by the Rambam

Rambam(Hilchos Chovel 5:1): It is prohibited for a man to injure himself or others. Not only is injury prohibited but anyone who hits a good Jew - whether it is a child (koton) or adult (gadol) whether it is a man or woman – derech netzayon (in a manner of strife) - transgresses a negative commandment. As it says concerning flogging a criminal in Devarim (25:3), Do not beat him beyond that which is prescribed as punishment. If the Torah warns us about hitting a criminal beyond which is prescribed as punishment - than surely it is prohibited to hit a righteous person.

Rav Elchanon Wasserman focuses on the phrase derech netzayon (in the manner of stife) in his commentary on Yevamos. He then produces an important generalization.

Kovetz Ha’aros (Yevamos #70): ...It would seem that all that is prohibited between people (bein adam l’chavero) is only prohibited when done in a harmful and destructive manner without justification. For example regarding the prohibition of “Not hating your brother.” This is only prohibited for gratuitous hatred (sinas chinom). In other words when he is not doing anything wrong (davar ervah). However if he is doing something wrong then it is permitted to hate him. It is important to note that the reason for hatred being permitted in this case is not because of the fact that a sinful person is not considered your “brother.” Tosfos (Pesachim 113b) explains that if you hate this sinful person for another reason then you transgress the prohibition. The hatred is only permitted because of the bad (davar ervah) that you see in him. Similarly regarding the prohibition of beating another, the Rambam writes that it is prohibited only if done as fighting (derech netzoyan). This is clear from the fact that it is permitted for a teacher to his student. And this that we noted before in Sanhedrin (84b) – that is only a rabbinic restriction. And similarly concerning the prohibition of causing anguish to a widow or orphan, Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:10) writes that if it is done to teach Torah or a trade – there is no prohibition. Similarly concerning the prohibition of lashon harah, it is permitted against people who cause discord and quarrels in order to stop the fight. Similar concerning using words to cause anguish (onas devarim), it is permitted publicly criticize someone publicly if it is for the sake of chastisement. It is even permitted to publicly embarrass someone if it is done for the necessity of chastisement for a person who has not stopped his bad behavior after being rebuked in private. In such a case it is even permissible to curse him. In fact this is what was done by the prophets in the past as the Rambam (Hilchos De’os 6:8) notes. We thus shown from all this, that all the prohibition involving interpersonal actions do not apply when the act is beneficial.

 The above is an important conceptualization. My son had a related conversation with the Rosh Yeshiva of Slabodka Yeshiva in Bnei Brak. He said that the Chazon Ish didn't understand the need for the extensive scholarship provided in the Chofetz Chaim's sefer regarding lashon harah. He stated the prohibition of lashon harah is simply not to cause harm to others through speech.

In short, the common way of viewing these mitzvos is that they are severe prohibitions for which there are limited heterim in special circumstances. The mitzvos and heterim are so complicated and nuanced that only a major posek can know when and how the heterim apply. Consequently people commonly are machmir to avoid transgressing the prohibition - and end up causing unnecessary harm to others (See the Piskei Teshuva O.C. 156). In contrast Rav Elchonon Wasserman's conceptualization is that the prohibitions only apply in situations where the intent and goal is to hurt another person. In a situation where the purpose is to help, and this is best way to help - there is no prohibition in the first place. 

This latter point is important. One can not speak lashon harah and  hurt another simply by claiming that it is  will also be beneficial.  The orientation of being focused on helping is critical. Thus Rav Wasserman is not providing a heter to permit actions which are harmful. One can not desire to cause damage and then find some benefit  and therefore claim that it is permitted because of the addition of the benefit. The concern has to be to help the other and not hurt him,
=======================
See note [י]

District Court says woman wearing talis at Kotel is ok

Haaretz   The Jerusalem District Court ruled Thursday that women praying at the Western Wall with prayer shawls and tefillin does not constitute a violation of “local custom” or a provocation, and therefore, no justification exists for detaining and interrogating women who engage in these practices. 

The ruling is a major victory for the Women of the Wall organization in its ongoing battle against police and the Orthodox authorities in charge of prayer rules at the holy site. 

The district court also ruled that contrary to police interpretations of a previous Supreme Court ruling, there is no prohibition preventing women from holding their own prayer services at the Western Wall nor any requirement that they congregate instead at the nearby Robinson’s Arch.[...]

Western Wall Rabbi Shmuel Rabinowitz said he will look into the ruling and consult with state's legal representative to examine its consequences.  

"The Western Wall is the last unifying place we have," he said. "It is easy to enflame the Western Wall it divineness. It is much more difficult to the find the middle route that will allow everyone to feel included and wanted at the Western Wall."

"I beg the authorities as well as the silent majority who care deeply for the Wall, to prevent extremists from turning it into a site antagonism between brothers," Rabinowitz added.

'Women needlessly abused for years'