Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Rav Aviner's Modesty Guidelines cause Controversy

JPost  The publication by leading national-religious figure Rabbi Shlomo Aviner of a set of principles for modest dress for women last weekend evoked considerable consternation within the community.

Aviner, dean of the Ateret Yerushalayim Yeshiva in the Old City of Jerusalem and the rabbi of the Beit El settlement, issued a list of directives for modest dress in his regular column in the weekly Shabbat pamphlet “B’Ahavah U’ve’Emunah” (“With Love and Faith”), which many saw as inappropriate and overly strict.

“Clothing should cover the entire body, it should not be transparent, it should not be tight, and it should be quiet and reserved,” the rabbi wrote.

The rabbi also issued directives regarding the color of clothing to be worn, saying that women should refrain from wearing anything red, body-colored, orange, bold shades of yellow or green, gold, silver or anything shiny.

Arms should be covered to at least below the elbow, but the sleeves should not be baggy because any movement of the arm will expose the area above the elbow, but “how much better and pleasant is it” to cover the arm up to the hands, Aviner noted.

The rabbi’s directives continue to discuss skirt length, 10cm. below the knee, stocking thickness, shoe type and color and other issues of modest attire.

Cheap Online-Ordained Rabbis Grab Pulpits

Forward   Rabbi Eli Kavon’s colleagues don’t consider him a rabbi. Ordained in two years via a correspondence course by a virtually unknown rabbinical seminary in Long Island, he’s not a member of any mainstream rabbinical association. Nor is Kavon eligible for membership on the local board of rabbis.

His congregation, a Conservative synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla., couldn’t care less. “I’ve heard lots of [sermons] in my lifetime,” said Irving Pomerantz, a member of the board of directors at Beth Ami Congregation. “He gives the best.” [...]

Conservative and Reform rabbis see the rise of these nontraditional rabbis as a dire threat. “It’s a plague down here,” said Rabbi Gerry Weiss, the JTS graduate who lost his job at Beth Ami to Kavon.
Others argue, however, that the shift answers an economic need, and one that isn’t going away. [...]

Ordination at the JTS’s program for Conservative rabbis and at the HUC-JIR’s program for Reform rabbis takes five years and costs more than $100,000, though many students receive financial aid. [...]

Some institutions now offering accelerated ordinations don’t even require a Talmud exam. At the Jewish Spiritual Leaders Institute, a 2-year-old online seminary, Rabbi Steven Blane will make you a rabbi after a year of once-weekly two-hour online classes and completion of “a 2,000-word research paper in a Jewish area of their choice,” according to the group’s website. Tuition is $8,000. Blane estimated that between the classes and other required sessions, ordination requires about 180 hours of class time. He said he has ordained 35 rabbis so far. [...]

Sarna, the Brandeis historian, agrees that the market is changing. “What you’re really seeing is the breakdown of the denominational control over every aspect of the process,” he said. “The same caveat emptor applies now in the rabbinate in the same way it applies anywhere else.”

Beate Gordon: Women's rights in Japan's constitution

NY Times   Beate Sirota Gordon, the daughter of Russian Jewish parents who at 22 almost single-handedly wrote women’s rights into the Constitution of modern Japan, and then kept silent about it for decades, only to become a feminist heroine there in recent years, died on Sunday at her home in Manhattan. She was 89. [....]

A civilian attached to Gen. Douglas MacArthur’s army of occupation after World War II, Ms. Gordon was the last living member of the American team that wrote Japan’s postwar Constitution.

Her work — drafting language that gave women a set of legal rights pertaining to marriage, divorce, property and inheritance that they had long been without in Japan’s feudal society — had an effect on their status that endures to this day. [....]

If Ms. Gordon, neither lawyer nor constitutional scholar, was indeed an unlikely candidate for the task, then it is vital to understand the singular confluence of forces that brought her to it:

Had her father not been a concert pianist of considerable renown; had she not been so skilled at foreign languages; and had she not been desperate to find her parents, from whom she was separated during the war and whose fate she did not know for years, she never would have been thrust into her quiet, improbable role in world history. [...]

Tuesday, January 1, 2013

Rav Sternbuch: Marry a 2nd wife if no shalom bayis?

Rav  Sternbuch (5:315): Abrogating the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom? I was seized by fear and trembling when I heard that one rabbi in America decided to abrogate the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom for the case where the couple had gone at least 18 months without shalom bayis (domestic tranquility). In such a case he permits the husband to marry another woman after he has deposited a Get and Kesuba and a guarantee of support for his first wife. I was upset because his words are against the poskim who agreed to abrogate the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom only in the case where the wife is crazy or when the wife does not want to accept a Get when it is required by halacha. It is obvious that if you abrogate also in the case where the marriage lacks shalom bayis for 18 month then that effectively does away with the Cherem entirely. That is because someone who wants to end his marriage will simply make sure that he has no shalom bayis for 18 months and then he will be able to marry someone else. The seriousness of the Cherem is stated explicitly in the poskim and that is why it requires the agreement of 100 rabbis to abrogate it – even in those cases where it is permitted to abrogate it.
 
However I heard from the Brisker Rav that when there is a breach in the observance of Torah law that one needs to defend it didactically and to state forcefully that violating this particular halacha is absolutely forbidden and serious and not to explain any conditions. Because by presenting different aspects of the law it is likely that they will rationalize their violation and this will serve to weaken the prohibition in their eyes. I want to add that if we need to bring justification for the Torah law - that serves only to justify their view rather than to strengthen the halacha. Therefore we need to announce that this particular halacha is a very severe prohibition and the words of the Brisker Rav should serve to state this categorically and not to explain and qualify our words. Therefore it is necessary to announce that one who proclaims such a leniency is debasing the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom.

I found someone who noted that the language of the cherem indicates that those rabbis who abrogate it improperly are also being placed in cherem. In my sefer Teshuvos v’Hanhagos (2:662) I wrote that the one who improperly abrogates the Cherem also violates that Torah prohibition of lo sasur. Consequently to the degree that there is fear that the words of this rabbi who is offering this leniency will be taken seriously – it is a mitzva to ask that the American rabbis sign a proclamation that this leniency is invalid and the prohibition of Rabbeinu Gershom remains unchanged. This will show that not everyone who wants to have the status of posek for difficult issues can come and simply take it.

Why was Weberman respected by all Satmar factions?

The avrech who comments under the name of "Important" - who contributed the valuable guest post explaining How do we know weberman is guilty  -  just added another important comment to his original post. I am making it a separate guest post because it is important in its own right. He was responding to a comment from "Rabbi". I have no idea of who "Rabbi" is or the veracity of his comment - however the response from  "Important" is valid. I have personally known him for many years as an ish emes. It would be helpful to reread the original post How do we know weberman is guilty


 Rabbi wrote: I got Information more than 5 years ago that Weberman sexually abused many of the girls that were sent to him for counseling.

Why victims will not come forward? shiduchim, shiduchim, shiduchim, status, status, status. satmar has the money and the power and they will destroy any girl and her family that will dare to come forward, just to protect the name Satmar. You should only know what Satmar did to the family of this girl that did come forward, they destroyed that family.

With some info I have, it becomes clear that Satmar knows that weberman is guilty.How reckless is it when they knew that weberman is 'oiver' on isur 'yichud' and they continued to send girls to him, where they just stupid? or simply reckless?
If Satmar do not support him, would mean that hundreds of girls were abused with their recklessness.

Dont forge; about 30 years ago when everyone found out that their meet ‘nikur’ was no good and should not be eaten. A ruv in satmar that also knew that the meet should not be eaten, screamed out loud "yoichly anuvim veyisbooee" to protect the name satmar the whole world should eat treifah, and or be sexually abused. shame shame Satmar


Important responded: I don't know what your information is and I wonder if you even tried to do anything with the credible information you had. (If it was as credible as you present it to be.) It hurts to hear that he might have been able to be stopped earlier and that so many victims could have been saved and new ones avoided.

I do know that the DA addressed part of your point though to some degree in his cross examination of Weberman on the stand. After establishing that Weberman is one of the only if not the only person in all of Satmar who was respected and well received in both warring Satmar camps the DA asked and Weberman admitted that he had been the driver for Rabbi Moshe Teitelbaum for two years. The DA then asked rather rhetorically "And isn't it true that you know a lot of things about a lot of people in both camps from when you were so close with the previous rebbe and had so much access to so much confidential information?" Weberman shrugged and smiled sheepishly as his cheeks reddened and answered something along the lines of "I don't think so".

The DA then went on to show which Weberman admitted to that he was even sent a number of "clients" for "counselling" by the Vaad HaTznius of Monroe. The DA posited that his special status was a major factor in why he was sent this business. Weberman feebly disagreed and said that it was simply because they thought he was a good counselor. (Weberman also denied the existence of a Vaad HaTznius in Williamsburg. He claimed that the Monroe vaad tried a few times to do some things in Williamburg but that was the extent of any such actions in Williamsburg.) However, his main clientele was from the Satmar community and school in Williamsburg which belongs to the other Satmar camp.

The DA also easily showed beyond a question that there was monetary gain for the girls school in sending Weberman clients and tried to show that the same was true for those in Monroe as well. Quite a few rackets and dishonest dealings the DA discovered in this story. Much more than actually came to the fore in court. This was clear from conversations I had with the DA during the trial.

So yes, there seems to be a lot more that went on and is going on behind the scenes that we don't know the entire truth about. Who knows how many other sinister aspects to this sordid tale we will likely never know anything about? We won't even know if it was important to know.

Uva l'tziyon goel

Monday, December 31, 2012

Rav Lazerson: Water meters on Shabbos/ Rav S.Z.Auerbach

This is a kuntres by Rav Simcha Bunim Lazerson regarding the recent and ongoing dispute between Rav Chaim Kaneifsky and Rav Mordechai Grossman  [click here] and others - regarding the problem of digital electric meters on Shabbos - as welll as clarifying the views of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach and the Chazon Ish. He concludes there is no problem! Rav Lazerson had a very close relationship with Rav Auerbach, is the editor of Shulchan Shlomo, and is the author of many halachic works.

Saturday, December 29, 2012

Why did Yosef say G-d caused his selling? Bereishis (50:20)

Bereishis (50:16-21): 16. And they sent a messenger to Joseph, saying, Your father did command before he died, saying,17. So shall you say to Joseph, Forgive, I beg you now, the trespass of your brothers, and their sin; for they did to you evil; and now, we beg you, forgive the trespass of the servants of the God of your father. And Joseph wept when they spoke to him.18. And his brothers also went and fell down before his face; and they said, Behold, we are your servants. 19. And Joseph said to them, Fear not; for am I in the place of God? 20. But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it to good, to bring to pass, as it is this day, to save much people alive. 21. Now therefore do not fear; I will nourish you, and your little ones. And he comforted them, and spoke kindly to them

One obvious explanation is that everything is from G‑d (i.e., hashkofa protis – Berachos 33b, Kesubos 30a) and everything is for the good (i.e., Berachos 60b – “R. Huna said in the name of Rab citing R. Meir, and so it was taught in the name of R. Akiba: A man should always accustom himself to say,Whatever the All-Merciful does is for good”), and that Yosef was either reminding his brothers of these elementary hashkofa principle or they didn’t know it and thus he was teaching it for the first time. 

But that can’t be because that was not their father Yaakov’s view of hashgacha protis. Berachos (4a) asks why despite G‑d’s promises to Yaakov, he was described in Bereishis 32:8 as being very afraid of Esav. It answers because he was afraid that he had sinned and thus not deserving of G‑d’s promises. Thus Yaakov felt that hashgacha protis providing protection only applied if he were without sin. This is in fact the view of the Rambam (Shemona Perachim Chapter 7) that Yaakov himself was lacking in Bitachon. Similarly Rambam (Morech Nevuchim 3:18) notes that only if there is absolutely complete cleaving to G‑d is a tzadik protected by G-d. The Ramban (Emuna and Bitachon Chapter 1) said that Yaakov didn’t want to rely on bitachon but only wanted what he deserved according to din. In fact the Netziv notes (Bereshis 37:13) that a man can be hurt by the free will of another – even though he doesn’t deserve the suffering. He cites the Zohar in support of this idea.

In sum, Yaakov did not hold that everything is from G-d  - because man can use his free will to cause harm not desired by G‑d and that only a perfect tzadik can count on G-d protection.  Therefore this could not be the message that Yosef was conveying to his brothers.

What he was saying instead was referring to an old dispute he had with his brothers after he reported his dreams which indicated that he was destined to rule them. Yosef was saying that what had happened including his being sent to Egypt was part of a Divine plan for the Jewish people for which he served as the agent. This was not normal hashgacha protis of an individual but rather hashgacha protis of the representative of the Jewish people. He was thus telling them that this was clear proof that the dreams were valid and proof that he was the leader of the Jewish people and thus it was G‑d’s will that he rule over them.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Malbim - why a loving relationship turns into divorce

Malbim[1](Devarim 24:1):  And if she doesn’t find favor in his eyes because he found in her something digusting (ervas davar)... We have already said the language of finding teaches that it is obvious to people. Therefore it is necessary to understand after he has already married her and had sexual relations with her – there is no question that he had previously seen her and he liked her and that is why he married her.[to be continued]


[1] מלבי"ם (דברים כד:א):  ...והיה אם לא תמצא חן בעיניו כי מצא בה ערות דבר - כבר כ' של' מציאה יורה שנתגלה הדבר לעיני האדם בב"א, לכן יש להתבונן אחר שכבר לקחה לאשה ובא עליה אין ספק שראה אותה מקודם ומצאה חן בעיניו וע"כ לקחה. ואם יכוון הכתוב לומר שאבדה החן היה כותב בלשון המורה ע"ז, לכן מכאן תשובה להמתלוצצים מאבותינו שהיה דרכם בקחתם נשים לבניהם חקרו רק על המשפחה ועל הנהגת אביה ואמה ועל מדות הנערה. ורק קודם הנשואין היה החתן רואה את פני הנערה, אבל נביטה צור מחצבתנו א"א ע"ה כשרצה לקחת אשה לבנו יחידו אשר אהבו העיקר היה אצלו רק משפחת הנערה וארצה, וחפץ שתהיה ממשפחתו ומבית אביו שידע צניעותם, ויותר מזה שסמך בזה על עבדו זקן ביתו ולא שלח את בנו עמו. וכתיב שם ויבאה יצחק האהלה שרה אמו, ואח"כ ויקח את רבקה ותהי לו לאשה, ואח"כ ויאהבה, וכן היה מנהג בנ"י בשבתם על אדמתם. ואהבתם היתה כנטיעת עץ אשר הוא מגרגיר קטן וע"י מים יתדבק בארץ ובכ"י יגדל ויתעבה יותר, כן היתה אהבתם שבתחלה היתה רק זיק האהבה שתול על תלמי לבו, וע"י כשרון המעשה נתוסף בו כ"י אהבה, ונמצא שעקר האהבה היתה נגלית רק אחר הנשואין, וז"ש והיה אם לא תמצא וגו' שע"י שמצא בה ערות דבר שהוא דבר גנאי ומאוס או מומין שבסתר או איזה פריצות לא תמצא חן הנחוץ לה שתמצאנה, וגם השכל יחייב שטוב היה מנהג אבותינו. שאחרי שקודם הנשואין לא ידע האיש בבירור מזג האשה וכן האשה לכן בהכרח היה אצלם ההסכם שנכון גם אם יהיה ע"ד הממוצע, אבל כפי מנהג החדש יתלמדו הבנים מקודם איך לתפוס בלבבם זא"ז שיראו זל"ז אהבה אשר אין על עפר יסודה ורק במשלים ובמחזות על במת ישחק, ולכן כשיתודע להם אח"כ שהטעו זא"ז תתקרר אהבה מעט מעט עד שיתכן שתהיה לאין ואפס, ואשר שאז היה הגרושין מצוי יותר יש טעם אחר בזה כי אז אחרי שראו שלא יחיו באהבה עוד חשו יותר מזה לתכונת הבנים שיולדו שלא יהיו בני שנואה. וד"ל. ומה שלא אמר הכתוב ושנאה כמ"ש באיש האחרון מפני שעיקר בא הכתוב ללמד שלא ישוב לקחתה. ואם היה ביניהם שנאה רחוק הדבר אחר שכבר היתה לאחר שישאנה. אבל אחרי שלא גרשה רק מפני העדר מציאת חן בנקל שישתנה דעתו. זהו ע"ד הפשט. ועתה נבאר הכתובים ע"פ דרשת הספרי והש"ס, שלב"ש יקשה ג"כ מ"ש שאחר הנשואין לא תמצא חן בעיניו כנ"ל. וע"כ יפרשו שהוראת חן הנאמר בכאן הוא כמו ונח מצא חן, שפי' שמצא חן וחסד שינצל ממי המבול והרבה כזה בתנ"ך. ויתפרש שלא תמצא חן בעיניו שירחמנה לעבור על מדותיו, שהדבר מובן שבודאי עשתה איזה דבר שבשבילה נתעורר לגרשה, והכתוב יבאר למה לא יעבור על מדותיו בשביל שמצא בה ערות דבר, ופי' דבר ערוה, ומדלא כתיב כי ראה בה ערות דבר, כמ"ש לעיל כי יראה בך ערות דבר, וכבר נתבאר לעיל שלשון מציאה הוא כשנתגלה הדבר בב"א, כמ"ש בספרי כי ימצא בעדים שפי' שאיך יוכל להגלות הדבר לב"ד הלא הם יושבים על מדין אלא ע"כ בעדים. וכן כאן דכתיב כי מצא שנודע לו ע"י אחרים ואמר עוד דבר כדכתיב ע"פ שנים עדים יקום דבר שיהיה עדות בדבר, נמצא שלא התיר לגרשה רק ע"י ערוה ובדבר היינו ע"י עדים (ובזה יתיישב מה שהקשו למה הוזהר שלא ישאנה אחר שנשאת הלא כיון שנמצא בה דבר ערוה ובעדים בלא זה אסורה לו לעולם, אבל לפי דברינו שלא אמר הכתוב שראה בה רק שמצא ע"י עדים ונתברר אח"כ ששקר הדבר ולכן הוא רוצה להחזירה, ומ"ש שהמגרש מפני ש"ר לא יחזירנה עולמית הוא רק תק"ח) ודעת בית הלל שא"כ היה נאמר כי מצא בה ערוה בדבר כדאי' בגמ' שם לכן יפרשו או ערוה או דבר כדאי' בספרי, וכונת הכתוב שמפני זה לא יעביר על מדותיו שהוא אדם שגם כשהקדיחה תבשילו לא יעביר על מדותיו, ור"ע יפרש שמציאות החן בעניני אישות יורה על היופי וא"כ מה ענין החן אחרי הנשואין, לכן יפרש לשון מציאה הנאמר כאן כמו (במדבר יא כב) הצאן ובקר ישחט להם ומצא להם שתרגומו היספקון להון. ופי' שהחן שהיה לה מקודם לא תספיק עתה מפני שראה אחרת נאה הימנה, וז"ש בעיניו פי' בשביל שראה בעיניו יפה ממנה, ומ"ש כי מצא בה ערות דבר הוא כמו או מצא בה ערוה או דבר כנ"ל. ולהסביר הדבר מה שיתכן שבנות ישראל יהיו קלות הערך אשר אם יראה אחרת נאה הימנה או שהקדיחה תבשילו שתתיר התורה לגרשה, אבל משפטי ה' אמת כנ"ל ורצה השי"ת שבני ישראל יחיו יחד עם נשותיהם חיי רצון ולא חיי הכרח. ואם לא היה יכולת בידו לגרשה היה כ"א מתאונן על חייו שבהכרח יחיה עם אשה אשר לא תמצא חן בעיניו, אבל כשי"ל יכולת לגרשה כ"ז שלא תאבד כל החן שהיה לה תספיק למנעו מזה, בחשבו שאם ישא אחרת גם היא לא תהיה טובה הימנה, וכ"ז שלא גרשה בהכרח הוא חיי רצון. ונסביר הדבר במשל קטן. אם יחרצו לאיש שישב בבית יום א' לעונש יחשב לו, ומרצונו ישב כלוא בבית כמה ימים ותחשב לו עוד לענג ונחת: וכתב לה ספר וכתב לה מיותר דהו"ל לכתוב ונתן ספר כריתות נלמד שצריך לכתוב הגט בשבילה וז"ש בספרי וכתב לה לשמה: עוד שם וכתב אין לי אלא כתב בדיו בסם וסיקרא וכו' ת"ל וכתב לה מ"מ. ואינו מובן. ונ"ל דבכל מקום שנאמר כתיבה שענינו על ספר הוא רק בדיו ולמדו חז"ל מהנאמר (בירמיה לו יח) ואני כותב על הספר בדיו אבל בכל מקום בא הכתיבה להתקיים לכן צריך דיו שהוא דבר המתקיים (אף דאמרינן בסוטה (יז ע"ב) שאינו כותב בקומוס וקנקנתום מפני שאיננו יכול למחוק לא שהם מתקיימים יותר מדיו אלא שרושמים בגוף הקלף או הנייר ואף אחר המחיקה נשאר הרושם אבל להתקיים במראיתו הוא רק דיו) אבל הגט כתיבתו אינו שיהיה לראיה ביד האשה שאם כן למה צריך כתיבה לשמה אלא שהכתיבה הוא לשעת הגט שבלעדו לא תתגרש וא"כ אחרי שהוא רק לשעה אין ללמוד משם שרק בדיו משום ששם היה נכתב להתקיים (ובזה יתיישב הא דממעטינן שלא בדיו במשנה משום ומחק ולמה לא נלמד מדכתיב שם וכתב וגם בספר אלא משום ששם ג"כ אין הכתיבה להתקיים רק למחוק משום הכי צריך למעט מומחק) וזה שאמר בספרי וכתב לה פירוש שמזה למדנו שהכתיבה תהיה לשמה מזה נלמד שאינו להתקיים ואפילו הכי ממעט אם כתב במי פירות ובכל דבר שאינו מתקיים שדבר שאינו מתקיים כלל לא מקרי כתיבה כלל: עוד שם אין לי אלא ספר מנין עלי קנים ת"ל ונתן מ"מ ופירש דספר מקרי קלף אבל מדלא כתיב ונתנו בידה רק ונתן נלמד מ"מ היינו כל מה שיתן: עוד שם אין לי אלא בידה מנין לרבות גגה חצרה כו' פי' דלפעמים יבא שם יד על היד ממש ולפעמים גם על הרשות כמו ויקח את כל ארצו מידו אבל אם כפשוטו היה לומר ובידה יתן להקדים יד לנתינתו שאז היה נלמד שהעיקר הוא קבלתה ומדהקדים ונתן לידה נלמד שהעיקר הוא נתינתו וקבלתה אף ביד שהוא רשותה. ומ"ש ר"ע אומר וכי במאי החמירה תורה כו' פי' אם גרשה וא"ל הרי את מותרת לכל אדם חוץ מפלוני ומת המגרש ואותו פלוני שנגדו לא גירשה הוא כהן ונמצא שהאשה הזאת היא לכ"ע גרושה ולגבי כהן הזה היא רק אלמנה ואפ"ה אסור הכהן לישא אותה משום דהוה גרושה לגבי אחרים, והוא נלמד מדכתיב ואשה גרושה מאישה אף שאינה מותרת לכל אדם רק שנתגרשה מבעלה אסורה לכהן וכ"ש שאם המגרש חי שתהיה אסורה להנשא לכ"א מפני שהיא באיסור א"א לגבי האחד שאינו מגרשה נגדו: ושלחה מביתו מיותר דמדכתב וכתב לה ספר כריתות וגו' ש"מ שנתבטל הקשר שביניהם ואח"כ והיתה לאיש אחר, אלא למדרש דאף אם נתן לה ספר כריתות צריך גם לשלחה מביתו והוא הדבר שאומר שנותן לה הספר בתורת גירושין:

Thursday, December 27, 2012

Divorce: When wife is disgusting or useless

Chinuch (#579): Divorce requires a document:  [see post of Abarbanel]   The basis of this mitzva is that since a woman was created to help her husband and she is to him like an desirable utensil. A similar idea is expressed in Sanhedrin (22b), A woman does not make a covenant except with one who makes her into a utensil. Since a woman is there to serve a purpose, it is the will of G‑d that when he is disgusted with this utensil he should remove it from his house. Because of this reason there are some of our Sages who say in Gittin (90a) that even if she burns his food he is able to divorce her i.e., for a trivial matter since she is nothing but a valued utensil in his house. However others Sages say that since she is in G‑d’s form and image and G‑d prepared her for her husband’s needs and honor – with eyes to see and ears to hear and intelligence – it is not right to reject her and send out of his house except for a major reason. This is as the verse says, “Because he found in her ervas davar (something disgusting).” Nevertheless according to all the Sages, if he finds some major problem with her it is correct to divorce her. That is because of the reason I mentioned, that she was only created for his sake. And since she is causing him upset and he is disgusted with her there is no necessity for him to remain with her. The Jewish approach is not that of some of the non-Jews who make a strong binding commitment to marriage that is only ended by death. A man should not be afraid to divorce his wife if she does something repellent and destroys all that is in the house and burns down all of his possessions. However the Torah commands that when she is sent away that it shouldn’t be done by words alone because this can lead to much trouble and immorality in our society. Because a wife who is committing adultery could simply claim that she was already divorced. In addition if divorce is too easy to do then it becomes very common. Consequently the Torah requires that a divorce be based on a written document and that there be witnesses who testify and that all those who claim to be divorced can show it. An additional advantage of a complicated written procedure over an oral agreement is that the delay and effort can cause the man’s anger to dissipate sometimes and he will decide not to divorce his wife and great is peace...

Wednesday, December 26, 2012

Rabbi Yakov Horowitz: Update - Re: Weberman Trial

 The following is from a private mailing of Rabbi Yakov Horowitz that he gave me permission to post.

December 24, 2012

With Nechemya Weberman convicted and awaiting sentencing, here are some reflections upon the trial and why Project YES supported his victim in a very public manner.

We got involved in the spring when it became clear that a young victim still within the statute of limitations was actually committed to pressing charges and testifying against her molester. In the process of doing due diligence, I personally heard from four additional victims of Weberman, all of whom were terrified to come forward and press charges because of community intimidation. They didn't know each other, but they all told the same stories, described similar forms of physical abuse - some of which became public knowledge during the trial.

Just one horrific example: Those of us close to the case heard from the victims that Weberman was burning many of them on their abdomens with cigarette lighters and candles as part of his warped fantasies. However, this was only discussed at a side bar during his trial and did not become public knowledge until this New York Post Article ran a few days after the verdict.

Two chassidish men, both in their thirties and well integrated into the community told me that Weberman burned their wives on their abdomens while violating them. One of the fellows said that he first discovered the abuse when his wife screamed and nearly fainted when he inadvertently passed a (havdala) candle close to her midsection. It was only then, that she told him the story of what she had gone through in her "counseling sessions" with Weberman.    

Weberman's other victims revealed details that matched those of the plaintiff in this case, which in the aggregate indicated that he was conducting an evil, calculated, and highly successful Grooming Process. This included humiliating his victims, and telling them that no one will ever believe messed-up kids like them. He deliberately turned the parents against their children, telling them, among other things, that their son or daughter was a pathological liar, in order to have his defense in place should the kids ever reveal his abuse.   
  
Weberman even told some of the girls he was abusing that (hold your stomach) they were reincarnated separately, but they had been married to him in a previous gilgul (lifetime), and that the intimate acts he was performing were intended as a form of te'shuva (repentance) for sins committed in their previous lifetimes. Keep in mind that many of his victims were innocent, pre-teen girls who were raised in a very sheltered environment, and that Weberman was presented to them by their school as a distinguished rabbi - lending credence to whatever story he spun to them.

Weberman carefully selected his victims from a pool of families who had marital issues or an elder child who was on drugs or no longer observant, correctly assuming that those parents would lack the self-confidence to do battle with him should they suspect anything wrong.

He was also very cautious not to abuse the children of well-connected families. None of his victims who have come to our attention are very wealthy or named Teitelbaum or Twersky (dynastic rabbinic families) - only from what Leona Helmsley famously called the "little people."
  
Once it became clear that Weberman appeared to be a serial pedophile, we recognized that this was a unique opportunity to break the wall of silence about abuse in the Charedi world. The "Establishment" responded to the accusations by holding a huge fundraiser  to raise a half million dollars for Weberman's defense.

Shortly thereafter, we were notified from those close to the case that the victim's family was under unbearable pressure from the community after the fundraiser. The DA was concerned that she would do what so many others before her had done - buckle under to the pressure and refuse to testify. Indeed, four men were subsequently arrested for attempting to bribe the victim to the tune of $500,000 to drop the charges.

Keep in mind that this brave young victim, not yet eighteen, had been repeatedly molested by Weberman from the young age of twelve until she was fifteen. (For all those asking what defense attorney Mr. Farkas kept raising during the trial - why didn't she come forward earlier - take a careful look at the size and maturity level of the precious 12-year-old kinderlach in your neighborhood. That ought to answer your question.) Knowing she would need help, we went public and urged our readers to Stand With the Victim and offer her emotional support in a post on our website two weeks after the fundraiser (May 30, 2012). We asked our readers to post comments of encouragement and to contact the Brooklyn DA requesting police protection for her family as needed.

Sadly, in the Williamsburg community there seemed to be almost universal support for Weberman (which is not at all unusual in child abuse cases - the abusers frequently get away with it for so long since they are otherwise well-respected, upstanding, charismatic members of the community) flinging slings and arrows at the victim attempting to ruin her reputation and totally undermine her credibility.

We then decided to embark on a campaign to educate the public about Weberman's wildly inappropriate methods of counseling the young girls in his care with this post What Went Terribly Wrong. We pointedly highlighted his flagrant violations of Hilchos Yichud (if these young girls had been in a locked apartment containing a bedroom with an "outsider" for counseling  sessions for four hours a day, three times a week instead of with Rabbi Weberman, the community would have been in an uproar). Hearing about his eleven hour car trip alone with her to the Catskills caused many to rethink their position on what was really going on.

In the lead-up to and during the trial, we posted Clear and Present Danger explaining the halachic reasons that predators need to be reported to the police, and The Halo Effect explaining how predators get away with their abuse.

Most people simply do not want to know about child abuse, as the entire subject makes them feel ill. Therefore, if just makes it harder to educate parents about abuse overall and how the grooming process works (here is a fantastic piece by Malcom Gladwell, In Plain View on grooming. A must read for parents.) Additionally, the cultural norms that have not allowed the Charedi press to cover the Weberman trial just adds to the disconnect and Cognitive Dissonance which is causing such harm to our kids.

Weberman's supporters are running a $1,000,000 campaign for his appeal, and they are going all out in a public relations effort, including this past week's Ami magazine where George Farkas, Weberman's attorney, graced the front cover and asserted Weberman's innocence.   

It is heartening that many of Weberman's other victims are now finding their voices - albeit only whispering to friends and family members. But the deadly wall of silence is showing growing cracks. Mr. Heinz, the Brooklyn DA went on record in several interviews  that there is "at least one more victim," (who has come forward but is afraid to testify), and his ADA's have previously stated that they are in conversations with six of Weberman's victims.   

In the charedi community, respected people are stepping forward. Ezra Friedlander, just released a column where he mentions a second Weberman victim and we will probably hear much more of this in the near future. There are simply too many survivors of his to keep this quiet forever. If or when they decide to go to the DA, the press, or to join in a class action law suit, the lid will probably come completely off.

Weberman is a monster who had incredible access to young girls and boys and married women for many, many years. What is so frightening is that those who are coming forward now are the married women, as the single girls are afraid of ruining their shidduch prospects. We shudder to think of how many single victims of his are out there continuing to suffer in silence.

Research shows that the average pedophile molests 50-200 children in his lifetime. With the level of access that Weberman had, and the naiveté' of the kids he worked with, ... may Hashem have mercy.     

The ongoing publicity proclaiming Weberman an innocent man is a dagger in the already broken hearts of his survivors. According to firsthand reports I received from professional therapists, even those survivors of Weberman's abuse who are grown and married are traumatized by these fundraisers to the extent that they are exhibiting signs of PTSD. It is for this reason alone that I feel it is a matter of pikuach nefesh (a matter of life and death) to give voice to his voiceless victims and publicize the true story of what transpired.

Standing with the victim and speaking truth to power the way we did was not a pleasant task, nor is it one that is risk-free, but we are determined to see this through.

My family spent this past Rosh Hashana with 200 Jewish recovering drug and alcohol addicts - the vast majority of whom ended up that way after being molested in their formative years. After listening to their horror stories and seeing the hell each and every one of them is undergoing, I promised myself that during the coming year I will redouble my efforts and do whatever it takes to keep today's kids safe. 

May it be Hashem's will that we finally succeed.

Best and warmest regards,

Yankie

Strange Side of Jewish History - from Yated Neeman


 Strange Side of Jewish History

For the past few years I have been writing the “Strange Side of History” Jewish history for the Yated Neeman newspaper of the United States. It is now the longest running Jewish history column in Jewish history. So far it has 200 articles

David Hoffman

Tuesday, December 25, 2012

Dina was a gadabout because she was really a boy

Alschich(Bereishis 34:1): And Dina went out.It is incredible that the holy offspring such as Dina would be a gadabout – something which is not acceptable for woman and especially not young virgins. Our Sages (Bereishis Rabba 80:1) say that the reason that the verse says that she was the daughter of Leah was to explain that just as her mother was a gadabout as it says that Leah went out to meet her husband... However the fact is that the behavior of Leah was not comparable to that of Dina because Leah went out to meet her husband. Furthermore our Sages say that it was because she was withheld from Esav that she was captured. But all of this doesn’t explain  the fact that Dina was a gadabout. I think that when the Torah says that she was Leah’s daughter it to explain why she was a gadabout.... It says in Berachos (60a) ...that after Leah became pregnant with a boy she prayed that it be a female so as to not further disgrace her sister Rachel to have less male children then the maidservants and have only one boy to complete the expected number of 12 male children. We see from this gemora that Dina when she was conceived was a boy but she was changed into a girl before being born. Therefore someone who is in essence a male – it is not surprising that she should be a gadabout because that is a male characteristic and everything follows from the essence....