28 years prison for father who repeatedly raped 6 year old stepdaughter - because he claimed they were in love

YNET     This item shows that the most disgusting examples of abuse can be perceived by the perpetrator as being wanted by the victim.

The Jerusalem District Court gave a nearly unprecedented punishment to a father who raped his stepdaughter hundreds of times over a period of seven years, beginning when she was six. The man was sentenced to 28 years in prison after he was convicted of hundreds of counts of rape, sodomy, indecent assault, sex crimes and additional sex charges. [...]


 During the trial, the father expressed remorse and said he saw the deeds as a “romance” which the two share.

Lakewood is driven by the fear of being called a sheigetz

Just had a long conversation with some insiders of the Kolko case. The simple question raised was,   "What is the way to change Lakewood's approach to dealing with child abuse?" It is obvious that they don't respond to halachic arguments and it is also clear that the rabbis lack the moral backbone to stand up for what they feel is right. They can't even muster the courage and decency to apologize for driving Rabbi "S" out of Lakewood - on a mistaken belief that he was a moser. 

Appeals to stop the suffering of children don't carry any weight - because their insistence  that  following the directive of a beis din is paramount even when children are being destroyed by molesters. They claim, mistakenly, that without a psak from a beis din that a person is a moser for going to the police. However the beis din system is incompetent and impotent. 

Bizarrely the beis din that Lakewood had to deal with child abuse has been disbanded. Mickey Rottenberg claims that he was told to disband it because it was too sensitive to the claims of the victims. He said in an interview with Jewish Week 12/06/11 that he was told to do this by Rav Malkiel Kotler. However Rav Malkiel Kotler denies the truth of this statement. So who is running Lakewood - Rav Malkiel Kotler or Mickey Rottenberg? Apparently the Lakewood rabbis are too embarrassed or chicken to answer that question.

In sum, Lakewood is a society that  while giving lip service to halacha is in fact concerned with one thing - the fear of being called a sheigetz. 

D.A. Hynes case against abuse whistleblower Kellner - blows up in his face

Jewish Week  On the eve of his scheduled trial date, prosecutors turned over to Sam Kellner’s defense attorneys evidence that appears highly damaging to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes’ case against the chasidic sex abuse whistleblower, prompting his lawyers to call for an “outside investigation.”

Kellner, a resident of Borough Park, is charged with paying a witness — a man The Jewish Week refers to as a “Yoel” — to fabricate claims of sexual abuse by Baruch Lebovits, a cantor and prominent member of the Munkacs chasidic community. Kellner, whose son is also an alleged Lebovits victim — and who brought additional Lebovits victims to the police — is also charged with attempting to extort money from the Lebovits family via emissaries sent to Lebovits’ son Meyer.

The evidence, which was turned over last Friday, three days before the scheduled start of the trial on Monday, July 8, includes notes of interviews prosecutors conducted with a key witness over the past two weeks. In the interviews, Yoel made a series of inconsistent statements, including some that directly contradict his grand jury testimony against Kellner.

For example, while Yoel testified in the Kellner grand jury that he knew Lebovits from synagogue, in a July 1 interview with Nicholas Batsidis and Joseph Alexis, two assistant district attorneys, and Rackets Division Chief Michael Vecchione, he claimed that he had “never seen Baruch Lebovits in his life.”

In the same interview, Yoel also denied picking Lebovits out of a photo array, which, along with Yoel’s statements to a detective, led to Lebovits’ arrest. However, five days earlier, on June 26, he told prosecutors that Lebovits “could have molested me. [I] can’t really say.”

During the course of these interviews, Yoel also told prosecutors that the reason he came forward with his allegations against Kellner was because, according to their summary of the conversation, he had become “disenchanted” with him after Kellner failed to pay him “a fee that the two had agreed upon for his false testimony.” However, in the Kellner grand jury, Yoel testified that Kellner gave him approximately $10,000 to testify against Lebovits.

All of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Yoel’s statements seriously undermine the prosecution’s case against Kellner, experts say.

Former Students File $380 Million lawsuit against YU for abuse coverup

Forward     Nineteen former students of a Manhattan high school run by Yeshiva University have filed a $380 million lawsuit against Y.U. accusing administrators and teachers of covering up decades of physical and sexual abuse.

The lawsuit, filed July 8 in U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y., alleges a “massive cover-up of the sexual abuse of [high school] students…facilitated, for several decades, by various prominent Y.U. and [high school] administrators, trustees, directors, and other faculty members.”

The assaults are alleged to have taken place during the 1970s and 1980s, at a time when Y.U. faced severe financial problems.

In New York, criminal and civil cases of child sexual abuse must be brought before a victim’s 23rd birthday. However, Kevin Mulhearn, a lawyer representing the victims, argues in the suit that the statute of limitations does not apply because Y.U. fraudulently covered up the abuse. [...]

The Mitzvah of Tzedakah by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt [...]THE THOUGHT PROCESS ONE SHOULD HAVE

Whoever shows compassion to the poor – Hashem shows compassion to him.  (247:3).

The thought process that one should have is that just as he is constantly begging Hashem for assistance in his own business ventures so too should he listen to the cries of the poor.  He should also realize that what goes around comes around and either he, or his son or grandson might need assistance in the future as well.  Whoever has compassion for others, earns compassion from others.  (Ramah 247:3).

HOW TO GIVE

• One should give Tzedakah while standing up and with the right hand.  This is true even if one puts it in a Tzedakah box.   If one is giving Tzedakah in the middle of prayers, however, one may remain seated.

• As soon as one has given the money to the poor person, or to his messenger or to the gabbai, one has fulfilled the Mitzvah.

• One must give charity even if it is 100 times to the same person.  This does not mean with no waiting period in between.  However, some authorities write that from morning to evening one is still obligated to give.

---

[1] SA 247:1

[2] The Steipler Rav in Kehilos Yaakov Bava Basra #8.

[3] Tosfos BB 8b Akfai; Lev Aryeh Chullin 110; Sefer Haflaah, Ksuvos 49a.

Halachic justification for Kolko's defenders

 I have been getting feedback regarding the views of the Lakewood rabbonim who defend Kolko. The picture is getting clearer and better balanced. Unfortunately it is also clear that there are rabbonim - including major poskim who have approved the course of action of Rav "S" but are intimidated against publicly acknowledging this. It is disgusting that they feel threatened  and will not admit what they view is the proper halacha in this case. Rav "S" clearly has major poskim to rely on.  Hopefully this public presentation of views will lead to improvements in dealing with sexual abuse and less fear in presenting differening views.

My understanding of the the view of the Lakewood rabbonim is basically this:

Kolko is a nebach but he is not a pedophile (i.e., he doesn't have a sexual desire for children) and he definitely is not a rodef. He is a lonely guy who befriended a kid (11 years old) who had no friends. They alleged that this kid seduced him into doing things he didn't want to do and would never had done without being seduced. Therefore he can not be viewed as dangerous to others and is "innocent" of being a pedophile. He clearly does not deserve jail time since he didn't initiate any wrong behavior - but was seduced. This apparently is also the view of Rabbi Belsky. Since they don't view Kolko as a rodef there was no heter to go to the police and thus the father is a moser. Consequently the rabbonim didn't do anything wrong by calling the father a moser and driving him out of Lakewood - and do not need to apologize. Rather Rabbis "S" is the aggressor for calling the police and causing Kolko to be given a severe jail sentence - which helps no one and is totally unjustified. Anyone who doesn't understand these elementary facts doesn't belong in Lakewood.

Update: This explanation not only is nonsense but it is immoral. They are shamelessly putting the blame on the victim. At least they acknowledge that Kolko is guilty of what he was charged with. The issue shifts simply to whether the father had the right to call the police. [see below] Aside from the fact there is no evidence that Kolko was "seduced" - it is a common excuse given by pedophiles

However their allegations still don't make the father a moser for calling the police. A problem with their view is that an adult male who was seduced by a male child is still chayiv misa. If the adult has been seduced numerous times by this or other children and yet  insists on remaining in contact with these and other children - and "allows" himself to be seduced - isn't this the classic rodef [Sanhedrin 73a) that one needs to save him from himself to stop him from sinning? He obviously can not control himself. So even if you want to say he is not a rodef to harm the child [a problematic assertion] because he allegedly is not initiating the sexual contact and the child allegedly asked for it - why isn't he a rodef for sin and thus needs to be stopped? In Kolko's case it has been alleged that he has had sexual contact with more than one child - and yet he refused to quit teaching  and being a camp counselor. Lakewood rabbonim would have had a stronger case if they had required Kolko to quit teaching and spend his day packing candy in Brooklyn where he would have minimal contact with children. To base a case on the ridiculous assertion that an 11 year old made him do it is embarrassing! It is fairly common for a pedophile to complain that he had been seduced by the child.

See this article in the National Catholoci Reporter where a priest with a PhD in psychology claims the children seduced the priests  You might want to do a google search at the outrage that claim caused.
========================

I think the key to understanding the differing views in the Kolko case is a passage in Rambam Chovel u'Mazik (8:11). In a section dealing with moser he states, "And thus one who distresses the public can be turned over to the police but not one who distresses the individual."

According to the simple reading - the Rambam is talking about verbal distress - not financial or physical distress and certainly not threatening life activity. Thus calling the police is permitted to stop someone from verbally abusing 3 or more people. This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer  as well as the Pnei Yehoshua and the Minchas Yitzchok. They view the basis for the Rambam as Gittin (7a). Thus they understand that if the distress is in fact financial or physical (e.g., beating) - then they claim the Rambam would permit calling the police even for an individual. There are other sources in the Achronim that permit going to the police if someone is physically assaulting another person - even though it is not life threatening. Obviously sexual abuse of a child - even not involving penetration - would justify calling the police

However others view this Rambam as talking about someone like the counterfeiter who is endangering the community or a missionary. The Tzitz Eliezar applies it to a teacher who is abusing young girls. Since there is no Torah prohibition against this he applies this Rambam to justify calling the police. However if the teacher only abuses a single young girl - then he holds that the Rambam doesn't provide a heter. Rav Eliashiv disagrees with the Tzitz Eliezer because he claims abuse destroys the victim and thus it doesn't matter whether it is boy or girl and how many. It is pikuach nefesh and the abuser is a rodef. However it is argued by the Lakewood rabbis that if the adult does not take the initiative then he would not be viewed as a rodef and there is no heter to call the police.

Thus we have three levels - 1) one can only go to the police if it involves either life threatening actions or to save the abuser from doing a sin that he is chayiv misa for (e.g., mishkva zachor) and there is no other way of stopping the act. The concern is only when the adult is clearly the aggressor rather than mutual consent - otherwise the adult is not considered a rodef. This is apparently the view of Rav Scheinberg and Rav Menashe Klein (Sanhedrin 73a). 

2) It is permitted to go if the child's psychological health is threatened by the abuser and this would increase the likelihood of suicide or severe psychological trauma. This is apparently the view of Rav Eliashiv and other contemporary gedolim. Beis din is not viewed as capable of protecting against this type of aggression. Beis din is not needed but a rav should be consulted for objectivity and to prevent the world being hefker. It is not clear what their attitude would be if the child initiated the sexual activity. I think that the majority would hold that the adult is still responsible for the resulting activity - not the child. For example the Rambam holds that a child is responsible for sexual activity and thus a seduced child is guilty while the majority view is that a child is not considered liable and all sexual activity of a child with an adult is considered rape.

3) It is permitted to call the police as protection  -  even against serious verbal harassment - if there are at least 3 victims and an individual can call the police for financial or physical harm. Moser is understood as being only if it is a willful act to hurt another. But if you call the police solely to protect yourself or others - it is not considered moser. No beis din is need since it is simply an act of self preservation. A rav should be consulted - but there is fact is no aveira if he isn't. This is the Chasam Sofer (based on Gittin 7a) and others. Clearly a father or anyone else can call the police to protect a child from any sexual activity.

How Lakewood prevents abuse from being reported

Jewish Week 12/06/11. “Most victims of abuse and parents in Lakewood are afraid to speak up because [they fear being threatened by rabbis],” Debbie Rudin, a victim of childhood sexual abuse who now lives in Lakewood, told The Jewish Week.

“There are many Jewish communities that are controlled by the rabbonim [rabbis] of their towns that set certain standards, whether in regards to businesses, giving kosher supervision or allowing schools to open,” said Harold (Hershel) Hershkowitz, a Lakewood businessman who ran (and lost) for the Lakewood Township Committee on an anti-cronyism platform against the BMG-backed candidate. “But all of these are controlled in an open manner well understood by all that live there,” he said. “Lakewood, on the other hand, has a cabal that controls most Jewish publications, websites and of course the political arena, in order to exert full influence whenever it is necessary in order to keep their position of influence.”[...]

Indeed, the court testimony described above affords a rare public glimpse into what New Jersey Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson characterized as Lakewood’s “parallel justice system.”

The testimony itself comes from the only sexual abuse case in memory from the Lakewood haredi community to be prosecuted — something that came about because a family flouted, at great personal cost, communal norms and pressed charges against an alleged child molester, Yosef Kolko, in 2009.[...]

In addition to information directly relevant to the Kolko case, testimony from the hearings indicates that there have been other abuse allegations apparently deemed credible by rabbis, but that nonetheless went unreported to the police.

In testimony in New Jersey Superior Court given in May of this year, Lakewood rabbi and activist Micky Rottenberg alludes to such a case, which The Jewish Week has learned involved allegations against the husband of a woman who ran a local children’s playgroup. The beit din found the allegations to be credible and publicized them, effectively shutting down the playgroup. However, the authorities were never notified and the accused remains in the community today.

In his testimony, Rabbi Rottenberg also sheds light on the beit din’s inner workings.

According to him, “[The Secretary] of the beis din [would contact] the victims … [and the] alleged perpetrator, discuss with them … beg them to do certain things. And if they don’t do it, [the secretary would say] ‘I’m going to report [to the beit din] that you don’t listen to us, and then we are going to … Take away your job. Send away your kids from schools.’ Whatever measures they would feel they have power to be able for the person to submit and accept the verdict of the beis din.”

Rabbi Rottenberg also testified that he felt the beit din favored the accusers and was in fact involved in disbanding it at the behest of Rabbi Malkiel Kotler for this reason. Rabbi Kotler, through his brother, denied making any such request. [...]

Tzedaka During Davening by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt   They come from beyond the borough and enter into local shuls to collect Tzedakah.  Are there halachic guidelines and protocols as to when they can collect during Davening and when they cannot?  Is it permitted during Psukei D’Zimra or chazaras HaShatz?  Is it forbidden or permitted to give during these times?  The issue is the matter of much shul conversation debate.  So, at the very least, an article on the topic could lessen the amount of talking in shul.

We are working, of course, with the assumption that if one sees a real Ani, one is obligated to give him money.  This is the clear implication and understanding of the words of the author of the Shulchan Aruch (247:1).  It is also how most of the Achronim understand the Mechaber too.

Tzedakah is a full-fledged obligation to be supporting the poor – it is not optional.  One does not have to give an entire dollar, nor, according to many Poskim must one give to people that could theoretically be working.  One could, however, prepare quarters to give.  It should also be noted that if one does not have funds to give, this is not considered an Ones – it is a full-fledged exemption.

One issue, of course, that comes to mind is the idea of Osaik baMitzvah patur min haMitzvah – one who is involved in a Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah.  The RaN (Sukkah 25a) rules that this principle is applicable even if it is possible to fulfill both Mitzvos with the one caveat that if it must affect the quality of the first Mitzvah being performed.  Otherwise, one should do both Mitzvos.

So are we truly capable of multi-tasking our giving tzedaka along with the davening that we were originally involved in?  The short answer would seem to be “no, we cannot effectively multi-task without compromising the first Mitzvah.”  All this is assuming that we are really concentrating on the Tefillah.  If we are not anyway, then it seems that the RaN’s caveat is irrelevant.   The consequences of this rationale are that if someone isn’t paying attention to the davening – then he could be approached and he would not be exempt.  If someone is paying attention then he is exempt. [...]

Grooming students for abuse at Horace Mann

New Yorker   When I was in high school, at Horace Mann, in the Bronx, in the nineteen-seventies, everyone took pride in the brilliant eccentricity of our teachers. There was an English teacher who slipped precepts from the Tao Te Ching into his classes on the Bible and occasionally urged us to subvert standardized tests by answering every question with the word “five.” There was a much loved language teacher who would pelt distracted students with a SuperBall. There was a history instructor who, in a lecture on how the difficulty of delivering mail in the early days of the republic helped shape Federalist ideas, would drop his trousers to reveal patterned boxer shorts.[...]

One group of boys stood apart; they insisted on wearing jackets and ties and shades, and they stuck to themselves, reciting poetry and often sneering at the rest of us. A few of them shaved their heads. We called them Bermanites, after their intellectual and sartorial model, an English teacher named Robert Berman: a small, thin, unsmiling man who papered over the windows of his classroom door so that no one could peek through.[...]

Berman could be mercilessly critical. He called boys “fools” and “peons” and scoffed at their vulgar interests in pop culture, girls, and material things. He was a fastidious reader of students’ work and a tough, sometimes capricious grader. He noted carefully who accepted his authority and who resisted. After he overheard one boy imitating him in the hallway, he covered the boy’s next paper with lacerating comments: “You used to be better.” On the rare occasion when a student earned his praise, he would be celebrated. Now and then, Berman would ask for a copy of a particularly well-wrought paper, which the boys took as the highest compliment; they called it “hitting the wow.” 

One afternoon in 1969, Berman announced that a tenth grader named Stephen Fife had written a paper that indicated he could be the next Dickens. Soon afterward, Berman asked Fife to see him after class. This was the ultimate invitation: personal attention from the master, who would go over a student’s writing line by line, inquire about problems with his parents, and perhaps tutor him privately in art history or Russian.[...]

Rishumei Aharon: New Rulings From Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l

5tjt by Rabbi Yair Hoffman   As a follow up to the previous reviews of both the Mesoras Moshe as well as volume nine of the Igros Moshe, a number of people (laymen, Poskim, and Rabbis) requested more information on the book entitled “Rishumei Aharon” mentioned in a previous review.  The Rishumei Aharon (Vol. I 92 pages and Vol. II 45 pages, beautifully arranged and typeset by Machon Daas Z’keinim in Lakewood, NJ) was written by Rav Aharon Felder, a Talmid Muvhak of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.

Rav Felder is the Rav of Congregation Bnai Israel in Philadelphia, and is the son of Rabbi Gedaliah Felder z”l from Toronto, a renowned Posek as well.   A responsa to Rav Aharon Felder, the author, appears in Igros Moshe YD Vol. IV #43.

Rav Felder spent 14 years with Rav Moshe Feinstein and spent much time with him during those years.   Rav Felder is a renowned expert in the laws of Gittin, and is often consulted upon in matters relating to Gittin such as the spelling of specific English names.  Aside from the rulings and halachic opinions found in the Sefer, there are some remarkable vignettes of Rav Feinstein zt”l – that are not found elsewhere.

Rav Felder is also known for his “tells-it-like-it-is” style (perhaps because of his Galicianisher upbringing), which makes both volumes very interesting reads.  There are also rulings that, in this author’s opinion are rather surprising.

VIGNETTES OF RAV MOSHE

The first volume begins with a number of vignettes of Rabbi Felder’s Rebbe.  Rav Felder relates that Rav Moshe told him once that while in Luban, he was married on a Friday afternoon. His own father was his Mesader Kiddushin – not just for him but for a few other couples as well.  Their sole Sheva Brachos was on Shabbos and no further Sheva Brachos, unlike the general custom prevalent today. [...]

Rabbi Berkowitz - advances in dealing with abuse in Chassidic community

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy