Convicted pedophile is legally raising adopted surrogate daughter

YNet   A sex offender convicted of sex crimes against young children who were under his supervision took advantage of a legal loophole and became the father of a girl through an overseas surrogacy arrangement.

The story was brought to the attention of the National Council for the Child by a woman who learned of the man's past convictions. "She told us of the screening tests candidates for adoption must undergo in Israel, and inquired why those seeking to adopt children abroad are not subjected to the same rigorous procedures," NCC Executive Director Dr. Yitzhak Kadman told Yedioth Ahronoth.

The NCC notified the welfare authorities, the educational institution where the daughter, four, is enrolled, as well as police. "We learned that none of the bodies was aware the man was a pedophile who is raising a surrogate daughter on his own," Kadman said. 

 They also learned there was no legal possibility to take the girl from the father, as the surrogacy procedures were intact. However, the father's relationship with his daughter is being carefully monitored by the welfare authorities, and he was made to attend special psychological guidance. [...]

Rav Triebitz: Challenges of Modernity and Rav S. R Hirsch

This Thursday night at 8:45 Rav Triebitz will continue the discussion about the dealing with modernity - with a discussion of the Seridei Aish's article on Hirsch. Meeting will take place at his home at 6/16 Katzenellenbogen in Har Nof.

Please contact me if you are planning on attending

Did the Gra strongly oppose the Maskilim as he did Chassidim

In Yale Professor Eliyahu Stern's recently published book on the Vilna Gaon - inserted below - asserts that he didn't publicly oppose maskilim such as Mendelssohn. 

In contrast in Rabbi Dovid Eliach's 3 volume work on the Gra - he cites letters which clearly indicate that the Gra was active in opposing the Haskala.

Prof Etkes in his biography of the Gra cites  the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe claim that the Gra was very pleased with Mendelssohn's translation and encouraged its distribution. Etkes rejects it as baseless. Any thoughts?

Update Prof Stern's Review of R' Eliach's book:MODERN RABBINIC HISTORIOGRAPHY
AND THE LEGACY OF ELIJAH OF VILNA:A REVIEW ESSAY (Modern Judaism 24 (1 )2004

Nowhere is the modern-day significance of the GRA highlighted more than in Dov Eliach’s The Gaon: The Story of His Life and an Explanation of the Teachings of Our Teacher and Rabbi the GRA. Upon opening his work, the author informs us of his cultural biases (though, of course, never calling them such). Eliach wastes little time publicizing that his unique and groundbreaking book has been blessed by his rabbi, Chaim Kanievsky, a leading figure in Haredi circles—a man who seldom if ever gives his blessings to such books. For our purposes, this blessing is mixed. On one hand, it signals an immediate red light to the critical reader. On the other hand, it also notifies the reader just how important and relevant this book is in present-day Haredi society. [...]

In volume 2 of The Gaon the strength and uniqueness of Eliach’s work emerge. Here, he offers one of the most comprehensive overviews of the GRA’s relationship to Torah study and secular knowledge. As is the case with every subject touched on by Eliach in this 1,300-page tome, it is obvious that he read through every book, manuscript, and document (though not all are cited) relating to the GRA’s stance toward knowledge not normally identified with Torah. [...]

However, the main novelty in Eliach’s analysis is his employment of the GRA as a historical marker. Specifically, Eliach uses the GRA as a figure through which he paskens (decides the religious status) on abroad range of different issues and figures identified with modern intellectual Jewish history. A paradigmatic example of Eliach’s historiography is his analysis of Maskillim such as the Av Beit-Din of Berlin, Tzvi Hirsch Levin, and Nafatali Hertz Wesseley. The GRA had little, if any, contact with these Berlin rabbinic figures. Yet Levin’s involvement in writing the only approbation for Mendelssohn’s controversial German translation of the Bible, coupled with Levin’s close ties to many individuals in the GRA’s inner circle, compels Eliach to ask how present-day Haredi culture should perceive these Berlin Jews’ religious identity. Unlike modern historians, such as Jacob Katz, who would have sought to verify whether or not someone such as Rabbi Levin was a Mendelssohnian modern, a Rabbinic apologist, or a Traditionalist, Eliach has concerns that are different but no less descriptive. Namely, he attempts to discern whether Levin or Wesseley should be termed “friend or a foe” of the GRA’s world and, by extension, modern-day Haredi culture. In Eliach’s narrative, historical categories are replaced with subjective sociotheological modes of definition. On some levels, this shift is only semantic. What the historian labels as modern is what Eliach calls “foe,” and what Eliach calls “friend” is what the historian might call traditionalist. However, in other respects this shift marks profound differences. Whereas the intellectual center for most modern Jewish historians is Western Europe and the universe and language of Moses Mendelssohn, Eliach makes the Vilna Gaon and the language and categories of the Eastern European rabbinic elite the basis from which to understand modern Jewish intellectual history. Eliach’s privileging of an Eastern European and rabbinic historiographic paradigm offers him the material to connect modern Jewish history to present-day Haredi society. This connection champions the claim of almost every leading Haredi rabbinic figure: namely, that Haredi yeshivot and social institutions are carbon copies of those thatexisted in pre–World War II Eastern Europe.[...]

Nonetheless, Eliach’s historiographic choices come with a heavy price. His attempt to make the GRA into a general in a war against the Haskalah is historically impossible. Ironically, in describing the GRA’ s relationship to the Haskalah Eliach employs a military trope. Somehow for Eliach the GRA goes from being the frail Talmudic Sage described in volume 1—a man who speaks glowingly about a diet consisting of bread and salt—to a powerful “warrior” “fighting” against the Haskalah described in volume 2. Nonetheless, the stark structuralist lines and oppositions that Eliach draws between the GRA’s Lithuanian community and Mendelssohn’s Berlin world simply could not have existed during either of their lifetimes. It was only after the GRA’s death that a demarcation between these two communities could be seen. As Edward Breuer and others have pointed out, during the GRA’s lifetime these two communities shared a great deal of intellectual currency and did not perceive each other in a hostile manner.

A review of Masoras Moshe by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

 [see my previous post on this subject Mesores Moshe - What is it?

update: see my recent post  Get Me'usa an apparent contradiction between Igros Moshe and Mesoras Moshe

Five Towns Jewish Times   [...] R. Mordechai Tendler, who had kept notebooks and letters of his saintly grandfather’s rulings in his 18 years as serving as his grandfather’s Gabbai, has just printed a new book of Rav Moshe Feinstein’s oral rulings.  The rulings number well over one thousand, and most of the them are quite fascinating.

The book has approbations from both of Rav Moshe’s sons, Rav Dovid Feinstein Shlita, and Rav Reuvain Feinstein Shlita, as well as Rav Shmuel Fuerst from Chicago and Rav Dovid Cohen from Brooklyn, both leading and well-respected Poskim in the United States.  Rav Chaim Kanievsky Shlita, of Bnei Brak, appended his signature as well to Rav Dovid Cohen’s approbation. [Rav Dovid Cohen and Rav Chaim Kanievsky are very close]. [...]

It is interesting to note that a similar but much thinner volume of rulings from Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l was published approximately two years ago by Rabbi Aharon Felder from Philadelphia.  Indeed, the Rav Felder volume contains rulings that were significantly more controversial than this more recent volume.  Certainly, R. Tendler was aware of these rulings as well, yet either he or, more likely, the editors of this volume chose to exclude them.  Of course there have been rulings emanating from Rav Feinstein that appear neither in this most current volume nor in the Rav Felder volume. [...]

In this author’s opinion, the vast majority of Rav Moshe’s rulings that entered into general acceptance when he was alive still remain generally accepted.  There are some rulings, however, where the trend has been to look elsewhere.  For example, Rav Moshe permitted the use of rebar to prevent cement from cracking when pouring cement for a mikvah.  [Rebar is short for reinforcing bar which helps reinforce or compress concrete through either a bar or wires made of carbon steel]. He held that the metal was batel to the cement.  The tendency for the past number of years of Mikvah builders is to stay away from rebar.  Perhaps this can be explained by the development of greater proficiency in pouring, but conversations with Mikvah builders indicate that there is a halachic trend at play here. In a similar vein, numerous Bnei Torah now look at the U shaped insertable Cholent pot as a problem of Hatmana – insulating, relying on the view of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach.  This is a position that was summarily rejected by Rav Moshe.

Perhaps only time will tell, but the question of how the arrival of this new volume will affect current halachic rulings of contemporary Poskim is certainly an interesting one.  Finally, family members have confirmed that there will be a total of eighteen volumes to be published. The Sefer is available at all major Jewish bookstores.

Jerusalem Formula: Jewish solution oriented therapy by Dr. Shulem

  Jerusalem Formula Introduction

This is the introduction to Dr Shulem's new book. It deals with how to do sucessful solution-oriented psychotherapy while being consistent with Torah values. Focus is on the precise use of language to cause cognitive shifts and reframing. Dr. Shulem has successfully used this approach and taught it to hundreds of students over the years. On the one hand it seems simple - but it does require proper practice and guidance to be done properly. It clearly demonstrates that good therapy doesn't have to be long or focused on the past.

Why Lapid is strengthening radical Chareidim or How not to draft the ultra-Orthodox

Times of Israel   by Rachel Azaria  a Jerusalem councilwoman representing the Yerushalmim Party

The government’s Peri Committee is offering a solution to the unequal burden of military service that is far from ideal. Why? Because it won’t result in the ultra-Orthodox joining the army, at least not for the next four years. If so, why are Yair Lapid and Yesh Atid determined to pass the law? Ah… It’s simple: they live in Tel Aviv. In other words, they have never actually met the ultra-Orthodox. 

Over the last decade, Jerusalem residents have witnessed a lengthy, difficult struggle over the character of our city. We have succeeded on a number of fronts: the fight against excluding women from the public sphere, retaining the pluralistic character of neighborhoods, and so much more.

We have succeeded because we became acquainted with the ultra-Orthodox community and we realized one key fact: the ultra-Orthodox community is undergoing significant changes, with two distinct undercurrents pulling in opposite directions. The first trend is an increasing interest in being part of Israeli society. These are people who feel Israeli and value the State of Israel. The other group is increasingly disinterested in joining society at large.

The ultra-Orthodox who wish to integrate into society face two main challenges. One is that they don’t know how to join society, so many don’t. But given the chance, they will gladly find their place. The second challenge is pressure from their more radical peers, who deny their religious devotion, threaten to not accept their children to schools, and other such sanctions. [...]

What we’ve learned in Jerusalem is to encourage the moderate voices in the ultra-Orthodox community, those who wish to join the Israeli and Jerusalemite public sphere and to resist the zealots.

The problem is that the Peri Committee does exactly the opposite. According to its plan, it will continue to exempt the entire ultra-Orthodox community from service. And in four years, anyone who doesn’t join the army – will go to jail.

This precisely empowers the more radical voices, who are waiting for a chance to prove that the secular want only to harass the ultra-Orthodox. Of course they’ll fight the Committee’s plan. It is clear that being jailed will be equated with “martyrdom for the sake of G-d,” playing right into the hands of the more radical groups [...]

Rabbi Noach Isaac Oelbaum Guidlines for Mesira Regarding Child Abuse

Dr. Baruch Shulem's new book - The Jerusalem Formula: A Religious Alternative to Psychotherapy

Nachlaot Abuse Scandal: Rav Moshe Shapiro accused of instigating the beating of a woman who was alleged to be involved in pedophilia and missionizing

The Nachlaot pedophile scandal is back in the news with the indictment of Rav Moshe Shapiro  for allegedly soliciting aggravated assault regarding the severe beating of an alleged missionary woman - who is not named in any of the reports but is apparently Sara Vorst - a very controversial figure. It is important to remember that indictments are not convictions. It is also strange since there is a letter alleged to be from Rav Shapiro praising her. Nachlaot abuse letters in English translation

See this link for some of the confusion and conflict as to who she was  

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/nachalaot-summary-of-what-has-happened.html

These are the items discussing the indictment

YNET   See BHOL see Israel Hayom for a translation Israel HaYom

It is important to keep in mind that the Nachlaot scandal was originally described by police as the biggest case of pedophilia in Israeli history. Then it was eventually revealed to involve pedophilia but was grossly inflated by mob hysteria. The  top link is the most recent.

http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-news-and-politics/117839/panic-in-jerusalem

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/11/nachalot-abuse-case-of-hysteria-moral.html

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2012/07/nachlaot-anonymous-letter-objecting-to.html

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2011/10/nachlaot-pedophile-ring-parents.html

Rabbi Micha Berger: Why Yeshiva World preferred Mussar Movement to Chassidus

I asked Rabbi Micha Berger: Would you be interested in writing a guest post ... including an explanation why Lita was not receptive to Chassidus but was somewhat accepting of Mussar?  It is also interesting to note that while the Gra was strongly against Chassidim - apparently was not so regarding haskala. In fact the previous Lubavitcher Rebbe accused the Gra of facilitating the spread of Mendelson's commentary. In addition he was viewed as the spiritual father of the Mussar movement which seemed to be as revolutionary in its own way as Chassidus.

Rabbi Micha Berger responded:

I don't think it's a mystery. Mussar is founded on the writings of the Vilna Gaon. E.g. the title of Even Sheleimah ch. 1 tells us that the essence of Torah is the breaking of [bad] middos. In the next generation, Nefesh haChaim is an ambiguous work depending on how you understand the relationship between the first three she'arim, and the fourth. One way produces the yeshiva movement. Read the other way, and you see how R' Chaim Volozhiner had R' Zundel Salant as a student.

R' Zundel is the one who noticed a young Yisrael Lipkin trying to stay out of sight as he watched his behavior and meditations in the woods. He set R' Yisrael on the path that would become mussar when he shouted to the youth, "ישראל, לערן מוסר, אז דו זאלסט וערען א ירא שמים — Learn mussar so that you will be one who lives in awe of [the One in] Heaven!” (I don't know Yiddish well enough to know if I remembered the conjugations correctly.) In Nesivos Or, R' Itzele Petersburger writes that Rav Yisrael Salanter called the moment a “thunderbolt” that changed his life.

So, hashkafically, what divided Mussar from the Yeshiva velt isn't goal, but means. The yeshiva velt believes that learning is metaheir, like a miqvah. (Mashal taken from NhC sha'ar 4) Personal refinement doesn't require a conscious work on middos, because "barasi yeitzer hara, ubarasi Torah tavlin -- I [Hashem says,] created [yeitzer hara], and I created the Torah to spice it." Mussar believes that it does require a conscious commitment to work on one's middos; to view avodas Hashem as a conscious process of growth.

The gap is thus FAR smaller than that between Litta and chassidus. At worst, Mussar was seen as a waste of time better spent on learning. Not a misdirection in purpose.

But it did hit opposition. The last volume of R' Dov Katz's history of Mussar (Tenu'as haMussar) is titled Pulmus haMussar. Modern editions, following the general trend to revise history, omit it. The only copy I have I had Lulu print from Hebrewbooks.org. (Available here.) The primary issue was taking time from learning. This issue led to Kamenetz breaking away from Slbodka as a yeshiva for those who wanted a more normal curriculum. And the matter also led to fights within Telzh.

But there were those who objected because they saw any change as being Haskalishe. And their arguments were simply about chiddush -- how could mussar be of value if generations of ancestors didn't need it? (An issue the Alter of Novhardok raises in the title lecture of Madreigas haAdam is to explain what he believes changed in RYS's day to require the innovation.)

I don't think everything quieted down until the Alter of Slabodka sent talmidim out to keep other yeshivos afloat.

Rav Eliashiv: Moderation is normally required but extremism is required in times of spiritual danger BK (60b)

Bava Kama(60b): Our Rabbis taught: When there is an epidemic in a town, one should not walk in the middle of the road, as the Angel of Death walks then in the middle of the road, for since permission has been granted him, he stalks along openly. But when there is peace in the town, one should not walk at the sides of the road, for since [the Angel of Death] has no permission he slinks along in hiding.

This is explained by Rav Eliashiv (Yeshurun #28) in his commentary to Avos to refer to one's approach to religious observance. This is elaborated by Orech Yesharim.

Orech Yesharim (brought by Daf ahl Daf to Bava Kama 60b): As a general rule a person should always go in the moderate path and not be an extremist. However when there is an epidemic in the city i.e., there are many people who deviate from the proper path of observance – then one can no longer take a moderate position and he should not follow the majority in sin. Rather he should take an extreme position. That is because the Angel of Death who is Satan can easily seduce people to sin at this time. It is only during a time of peace i.e., when people are observant and attached to G‑d – then it is necessary to take a moderate position. In fact if a person takes an extreme position during times of general religous observance he places himself in great spiritual danger. Because at that time Satan has domain over those who conduct themselves as fanatics and extremists since their conduct is not for the sake of heaven.