More of Lopin's lies and distortions regarding the seminaries

Yerachmiel Lopin's flights of fantasy and outright lies are getting worse. Having pinned his hopes on the CBD to destroy the seminaries and the IBD - he has been had a tough time of it since the CBD joined the IBD and issued a joint psak that was similar to what the IBD has been saying all along. Due to the odious task of having to read through Lopin's posting, I am going to start this post and add more material to it later.

 Lopin's lies: "...Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah Blog, which has always been the voice of Meisels and guilty seminary staff as argued by Rabbi Chaim Malinowitz. Their agenda has always been to minimize acknowledging Meisels’ sexual abuse (even though he faces civil court charges of rape and attempted rape by two of his alumni)."

Lopin's strategy has always been to present conjecture with wildly exaggerated claims presented as facts. I have simply stated that evidence is needed before accepting allegations as true. Contrary to Lopin, conjecture is not the same as evidence. Lopin seems to believe that insisting on evidence is to "minimize acknowledging Meisels sexual abuse" and is therefore wrong. What has become clear to mostly everyone except for Lopin and his peanut gallery - the case does not involve the rape of 40 girls, nor does it involved the cover up of sexual abuse by the staff nor is there any evidence to support the absurd RICO claims that the seminaries were constituted as houses of prostitution for Meisels pleasure and to defraud the parents. What is clear is that Meisles is unfit to be in chinuch and he has been removed. Lopin is not a prophet and his visions and his reckless allegations are not the same as truth. Lopin's filthy claims and attempt to paint me as a supporter of Meisles should be beneath response - but there seem to be some naive people who forget that guilt is established by evidence not by the rantings of  demagogues.
 
Lopin's lies:"The enlarged beis din’s majority was guided by a Haredi “sixth Shulchan Aruch” that no scandal can ever be allowed to close up institutions that provides jobs to people from choshuv (important) families. Under this perversion of commonsense and halacha (Jewish law), the reputations and jobs of important families overrode the safety and well-being of students...."

There is no such rule. Rav Sternbuch told me explicitly that the concern for viability of a yeshiva never takes precedent over the welfare of a child. There was never a time that the IBD or the CBD felt it was permissible to endanger a student for the sake of the existence of the seminaries. Here is a clear example of Lopin making up a lie rather than accept the fact that the seminaries are in fact not a danger to their students.

Lopin's lies: "How in the world did a yeshiva get so entangled with a cell phone company. The lawsuit by Yarmish/Zap Cellular alleges RICO violations. Eidensohn screamed “blood libel” when Yarmish, Meisels and Rabbi Gartner were sued by parents unable to get refunds after they withdrew their daughters per the psak of the CBD. One Jew’s heter arcaos (permission to sue a Jew in secular courts) is another man’s blood libel."

Lopin is lying when he indicates that I am against RICO suits. If Lopin bothered reading what I wrote I objected to the RICO suit which alleged a conspiracy of Meisels creating the seminaries solely as houses of prostitution for his pleasure and to defraud parents. Such a claim is not only absurd, it is a tremendous slander for all the girls who have attended the seminaries as well as the staff. It is an incredible chilul hashem. That criticism has absolutely nothing to do with the appropriateness of RICO suites in general. Lopin cares nothing for the collateral damage he causes as long as he can slander chareidim.

Lopin's lies: "Yes, Malinowitz and Eidensohn’s nephew are the two most important political figures in Haredi Bet Shemesh. They partner on all sorts of projects including schools, and are now talking about a hareidi initiative on sex abuse to undercut Magen which does support reporting sex crimes to the police."

My nephew  is not "now talking about a hareidi initiative on sex abuse to undercut Magen  which does support reporting sex crimes to the police." 1)His program has been in operation for a long time. 2) Furthermore his program is not undercutting Magen nor was it created to undermine Magen - as can be seen from my recent post about his program which includes a letter from one of Magen's staff. 3) Furthermore my nephew's program in fact works with the police and reports sex crimes to the police. Not all parents want to go to the police and that is true of Magen's clients also. Lopin tries to create hatred and divisiveness rather than taking the trouble of understanding the facts.


Lopin's lies:  "Now we are again assured by Eidensohn that the seminaries are sold to Rabbi Gedaliah Weinberger “a prominent member of Agudas Yisroel.” For the record, he is “prominent” because he is wealthy, not because he has any educational credentials. He was Chair of Agudah’s lay board until 2013. He did Agudah’s dirty work of maintaining connections with mayoral candidate Anthony Weiner after an ugly sexting scandal, because Jews owed him “hakkaros hatov” (gratitude) and “the other candidates are not much better then him in terms of behaviors.” He sounds like is the perfect man to replace Elimelech Meisels. "

Here Lopin see fit to smear Rabbi Weinberger by equating his role in dealing with Anthony Weiner as a community leader with the immoral activity of Meisels.  Yes Jewish community leaders need to deal with a variety of immoral characters who hold views and conduct themselves in disgusting ways. Whether there was a need to give aid and comfort to Anthony Weiner is a legitimate question that good men can strongly disagree. However that provides no justification for equating Rabbi Weinberger to Meisels and basically saying that the new owner of the seminaries is no different than the former one.

Lopin's lies: "Eidensohn’s “leak” is once again, highly selective, and actually undermines his arguments. Remember, the dispute initially pitted 3 rabbis of the CBD against 3 rabbis of the IBD. Rabbi Gartner refused to join the dissent of the IBD leaving only Rabbis Shafran and Malinowitz. All we see of the two-rabbi dissent is that they don’t think any seminary staff are culpable, meaning five rabbis including Brudny felt there was some staff culpability. But then we have Malinowitz dissenting from his dissent partner, Shafran, and going solo to declare:...So we now know that 6 out of seven dayanim thought there were red flags. In my opinion the administrators should be in trouble for either willfully ignoring the red flags, or being too color blind or stupid to notice them.

Lopin obvously has not read the full minority opinion and is so obsessed with seeing disputes amongst the dayanim that aren't there that  he grossly misunderstands the last page of the minority pask that I published -  as a dispute between Rav Shafran and Rav Malinowitz. More importantly he falsely characterizes the nature of the joint psak and the nature of the minority dissent. A commentator - Ish - to Lopin's post states:

BTW R’ Malinowitz’s dissent is from the joint psak which finds a need to sanction one of the staff members. After a very long hebrew explanation by R’ Shafran why he finds no need to sanction the person in question — or anyone else — R’ Malinowitz, who in his signature to the main psak [which you posted} writes that he agrees with every word written by R’ Shafran, adds an English summary of what was written in Hebrew by Rav Shafran — it was unquestionably not a dissent[...]

 In response to a ridiculous response by Lopin to the above Ish continues:

I think you are being disingenuous. The whole purpose of a joint beis din was to find some way to get back accreditation for the seminaries. Otherwise, the IBD was ready to clear the seminaries in accordance with the takonos they implemented. The architecht of the joint beit din was Rabbi Gartner. Rabbi Shafran made it clear that only a perversion of halachah allows censure of that staff member (the acrimony to which you refer in an earlier post). Rabbi Gartner made sure that the IBD would allow a vague censure on which everyone could sign. Then CBD dissented with a stronger censure OF ONE PERSON, and the remainder of the IBD dissented on that vague censure, but accepted it as necessary in the real world. You didn’t read the nineteen pages before R’ Malinowitz’s signature. There was nothing substantive added by R’ Malinowitz.

If you want to go with what your eyes see, why does R’ Malinowitz write in his signature to the main ” דעתי במלא המובן כהרר שפרן ואני גם כן כדעת המיעוט והנני חותם בהצטרפות לדעת הרוב “להלכה ולמעשה I’ll allow you to translate that. That’s explicit enough to obviate any need for pilpul about dissent from dissent.

You go with what your eyes see, but don’t force what you see to meet your agenda. This includes R’ Kahane, of whom the JBD writes [and you posted]”ויותר אין להרהר ולפקפק חס ושלום בחזקת כשרותו וצדקתו לחנך בנות ישראל לתורה ולתעודה ” This was bolded in the original and signed by all seven dayanim — and I tell you from what I have indeed seen with my own eyes there is no dissent on that point. If you choose to dissent, then the burden of proof is on you to show proof that people can see with their own eyes that there is any dissent on that point. Even with what is available to the public it is clear that R’ Gartner — at least – is not disgusted by R’ Kahane’s abilities to educate seminary girls.

 [to be continued]

Chareidi therapist accused of abusing clients

YNET

המטפל החרדי חשוד בבעילת מטופלת ובביצוע מעשים מגונים במטופלות נוספות. החשוד, תושב נווה יעקב בן 44, נעצר השבוע בידי ימ"ר ירושלים בחשד שביצע מעשים מגונים במטופלות שלו ואף שכב עם אחת מהן. על פי החשדות, הוא שכר חדרי טיפול בעמותה חרדית שנמצאת בגבעת שאול ושם ככל הנראה ביצע את זממו.

תחילת הפרשה לפני מספר שבועות, אז התקבלה בימ"ר ירושלים תלונה של אישה חרדית שטוענת כי במסגרת טיפול שעברה אצל החשוד הוא ביצע בה מעשים מגונים. בין השאר סיפרה האישה כי הוא נהג להושיב אותה עליו וללטף אותה מתחת לבגדים. מיד לאחר קבלת התלונה התחילה המשטרה בחקירה. החוקרים בראשותו של ראש מחלק נוער חשיפה, רפ"ק גולן מאירי, הגיעו לאישה נוספת שטענה כי הוא נגע באיבר מינה.

בחקירתו טען החשוד כי כל מה שביצע היה כחלק מטיפול וללא כל קונוטציה מינית. במשטרה ממשיכים בחקירה, ובין השאר מנסים להגיע למתלוננות נוספות ובודקים את האישורים הנדרשים לביצוע טיפולים כמו אלה שביצע החשוד. 

Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Shalom Bayis Beis Din - Chol HaMoed Shiurim

Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn will give free conference call shiurim three times Chol HaMoed at 2 PM, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday bli neder. The topic will be how to deal with difficulties in marriage and how to avoid them. Difficulties are always available but unfortunately what people often do to solve their problems make bigger problems. To join the class by telephone dial 605-562-3130 and then enter the code 411161# . The class will be recorded and some of it will be muted but some of it will be open to questions and comments.

The programs discussed in these classes will be the basic ideas of Shalom Bayis Beth Din. We mention also that our program of everyone learning Even Hoezer, beginning with Rambam Noshim and then the Tur on marriage and family and then the Shulchan Aruch began with a few people who are very interested in this. First read through the Rambam Noshim, then the Tur on Even Hoezer, then the Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer.

If you learn the Rambam it is easy to learn the Tur and if you learn the Tur and the Rambam it is easy to learn the Shulchan Aruch. From that one can go into the gemoras and the poskim and get Semicha on Even Hoezer. It is our hope that those who study Rambam, etc., will be candidates for our Shalom Bayis Beth Dins. But everyone who skims the Rambam, Tur and Shulchan Aruch even without going further has a basic knowledge of the laws of marriage and family which is our main goal.

Memories are readily implanted by psychotherapy and leading questions- Dr. Loftus

This book is highly recommended and brought about a major change in attitutde towards the understanding of recall and witness idenitification in criminal cases. It is also a stinging indictment against psychotherapists who help clients "discover" or "recover" memories which are then used to make criminal charges against others.

She also records the outrage of "victims" and "abuse advocates" against her. They can not accept that an authority on memory can challenge the validity of memories recovered through therapy and hypnosis which have no independent verification. The "victim" is supposed to be always right because they claim to be the victim. While she fully agrees that much abuse occurs - but she also demands solid evidence before convicting some of being the abuser.

http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/lof93.htm

One therapist, who has treated more than 1,500 incest victims, openly discussed her method of approaching clients ( Forward and Buck, 1988 ). "You know, in my experience, a lot of people who are struggling with many of the same problems you are, have often had some kind of really painful things happen to them as kids–maybe they were beaten or molested. And I wonder if anything like that ever happened to you?" (p. 161). Other clinicians claim to know of therapists who say "Your symptoms sound like you've been abused when you were a child. What can you tell me about that?" ( Trott, 1991a, p. 18 ); or worse, "You sound to me like the sort of person who must have been sexually abused. Tell me what that bastard did to you" ( Davis, 1991, p. 82 ).

At least one clinician advocated "It is crucial...that clinicians ask about sexual abuse during every intake" ( Frawley, 1990 ). The rationale for this prescription is that a clinician who asks conveys to the client that the client will be believed and that the clinician will join with the client in working through the memories and emotions linked with childhood sexual abuse. Asking about sexual abuse along with a list of other past life events makes sense given the high instance of actual abuse, but the concern is how the issue is raised and what therapists do when clients initially deny an abusive past.

Evidence exists that some therapists do not take no for an answer. One therapist (who otherwise seemed sensitive to problems of memory tampering) still recommended "When the client does not remember what happened to her, the therapist's encouragement to `guess' or `tell a story' will help the survivor regain access to the lost material" ( Olio, 1989, p. 6 ). She went on to provide the example of a client who suspected sexual abuse but had no memories. The client had become extremely anxious at a social gathering in the presence of a three-year-old girl. She had no idea why she was upset except that she wanted the little girl to keep her dress down. When encouraged in therapy to tell a story about what was going to happen to the little girl, the client ultimately related with tears and trembling one of the first memories of her own abuse. She used the story to "bypass her cognitive inhibitions and express the content of the memory" (p. 6). Later she "integrated the awareness that she was indeed the little girl in the story" (p. 6). One cannot help but wonder about these mental fantasy exercises in light of known research showing that the simple act of imagination makes an event subjectively more likely (e.g., Sherman, Cialdini, Schwartzman,

Even if the therapist does not encourage the client to guess or tell a story, stories sometimes get told in the form of client dreams. If discussions of incest go on during the day, and day residue gets into the dreams at night, it would not be surprising to see that dreams of incest might result. Poston and Lison (1990) described a woman with "repressed memories" of incest who reported a dream about watching a little girl ice skate on a frozen river. In her dream, the woman tried desperately to warn the child that monsters and snakes were making their way through the ice to devour her. Although frightened, the woman was powerless and could not warn the innocent child. A few days later, the client began remembering incest from her childhood. Knowing she had "a trusted relationship with a therapist and a survivor's group that would understand and accept her" (p. 197), the memories began to flow.

Examples of therapists interpreting dreams as signs of memory of abuse can be found throughout the literature. One clinician described with pride how she communicated to her male patient the basis for her suspicions that he had been abused: "On many occasions, I explained that these dreams had preserved experiences and impressions of an indelible nature" ( M. Williams, 1987, p. 152 ).

Frederickson (1992), who has worked with many incest survivors, has also described in detail her methods of getting patients to remember. She recommended that the therapist guide the patient "to expand on or explore images that have broken through to the conscious mind, allowing related images of the abuse to surface. The process lets the survivor complete the picture of what happened, using a current image or flash as a jumping-off point" (p. 97). She also suggested that the therapist help the patient expand on the images and sensations evoked by dreams "to shed light on or recover our repressed memories" (p. 98). She extolled the virtues of hypnosis to "retrieve buried memories" (p. 98) and recommended that patients "jot down suspected memories of abuse you would like to explore. Include your own felt sense of how you think you were abused" (p. 102).

Even if clinicians are not the first to bring up sexual abuse, they will often reinforce what begins as a mere suspicion. One client developed the idea that she might have been sexually abused, tried hypnosis to help her recover memories, and obsessed for years. Only after her therapist stated that she believed sexual assault was "indeed possible" and cited nightmares, phobia of men, and other symptoms as evidence did the client come up with some specific memories ( Schuker, 1979, p. 569 ). [...]

Why Would Therapists Suggest Things to Their Patients?

The core of treatment, it is widely believed, is to help clients reclaim their "traumatic past" ( Rieker and Carmen, 1986, p. 369 ). Therapists routinely dig deliberately into the ugly underbelly of mental life. They dig for memories purposefully because they believe that in order to get well, to become survivors rather than victims, their clients must overcome the protective denial that was used to tolerate the abuse during childhood ( Sgroi, 1989, p. 112 ). Memory blocks can be protective in many ways, but they come at a cost; they cut off the survivors from a significant part of their past histories and leave them without good explanations for their negative self-image, low self-esteem, and other mental problems. These memories must be brought into consciousness, not as an end in itself but only insofar as it helps the survivors acknowledge reality and overcome denial processes that are now dysfunctional (p. 115).

Another reason therapists may be unwittingly suggesting ideas to their clients is that they have fallen prey to a bias that affects all of us, known as the "confirmatory bias" ( Baron, Beattie, and  Hershey, 1988 ). People in general, therapists included, have a tendency to search for evidence that confirms their hunches rather than search for evidence that disconfirms. It is not easy to discard long-held or cherished beliefs, in part because we are eager to verify those beliefs and are not inclined to seek evidence that might disprove them [...]

Psak saying the seminaries staff acted properly and they are a good place for Torah education

Hopefully this psak will settle the issue of the seminaries. This is the final page of the 18 page psak presenting the view of Rav Shafran and Rav Malinowitz. I debated with myself whether to post all 18 pages where the testimony of the witnesses was presented and analyzed, where questions were raised and different ways were discussed of viewing the case.

However I decided that this together with the final psak of the joint beis din that the seminaries are safe and are good places for Torah education and that none of the staff need be fired should be sufficient and clear. In addition the joint beis din called for a restoration of college grants. My understanding is that in fact the college funding has been restored and that contrary to dire predictions [or rather nasty hopes] of some outsiders - all the seminaries are doing well with healthy enrollments and the excellent staff continues as before - without anyone being fire, suspended or even censured. It is time to stop the negative conjecture and accept that the seminaries - after a through investigation - have been cleared. In addition they have taken very strong positive steps to ensure the well being of all the students - a significant advancement beyond other seminaries.

Finally I have been informed that the seminaries have recently been sold to Rabbi Gedalya Weinberger, prominent member of Agudas Yisroel. All the seminaries have quality groups and nice quantity groups as well and Excelsior college is back for all seminaries. Finally  Binas is opening a Shana Bais seminary on top of its existing upcoming Shana Alef. New program is called " Havineini,  - unto more Binah"

שיעור הלכות גיטין #2 TONIGHT 5 PM instructions below‎

Shiur tonight [Wednesday March 31 5 p.m. New York time] with Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn about coerced Gittin and the various opinions.


To participate in Shiur on Laws of Gittin especially forced Gittin call 605-562-3130 then type in code 822322#.

If  you are typing or making any noise be sure to mute your phone. We hope to record it. We will make breaks for questions. Tonight we study about a woman who claims that her husband disgusts her. May she coerce a GET from her husband? What circumstances are involved and what opinions? 

What is the halacha in the Shulchan Aruch?

For questions and comments call Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn at 845-578-1917.

Thank you and a Good Yom Tov.

Rav Zeff Lev - How to Fulfill One's Obligation to Feel YOU Left Mitzrayim:

Click to play audio recording

President of World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder, visits Vienna

President of the World Jewish Congress, Ronald Lauder addressed the Viennese Jewish community at an event held Sunday evening, an informal dialogue with former President of the community, Ariel Muzicant.

Mr Lauder, son of Estee Lauder, founder of the Estee Lauder Companies, spoke about his time in Vienna as US ambassador from 1986 to 1987. Other topics included anti-semitism in Europe as well as Lauder's peace negotiations with Syrian leader Hafez al-Asad in 1998.

Mr Lauder spoke proudly about his philanthropic work to revive Jewish life in Europe and the 17 schools and institutions he has founded, including the Lauder Business School in Vienna. The only problem, he admitted, was that students were leaving for the US after their studies.

'We have enough people in the States,' he said. 'Young people are needed here to build up the community.'

Mr Muzicant spoke about the Viennese approach to integrating outsiders.

'Our community, more than any other European city does the most to welcome in new immigrants and integrate them into our community. We are a community who really care about everyone,' he said.

At the end of the discussion, the tragic plight of UK mother, Beth Alexander was raised with Mr Lauder. The President acknowledged that he was aware of the situation and told Beth personally he would 'look into it further.'

Rabbinic Authority and Psak Halacha by A. Prager

Guest Post by A. Prager

What exactly is psak halacha, and what does it achieve? This issue is and remains ambiguous to many. The nature and effect of psak is something ethereal, undefined and apparently abstract. What actually happens when the Rav issues his ruling, how do his words oblige the שואל, and what is the halachic and existential nature of Piskei Halacha?

In this post I would like to share some essential facts and information to unravel this unnecessarily elusive issue. Built upon the words of Rishonim, Poskim and Shu”t, I will explain that psak is a halachic reality, and examine how it is that a halachic ruling can obligate the questioner.

Cherry-Picking Poskim

A well-known Gemara (Avoda Zara 7a) states that once one halachic authority is questioned and rules regarding the halachic status of an item, no other authority should be questioned to procure a differing ruling:

"ת"ר: הנשאל לחכם וטימא - לא ישאל לחכם ויטהר, לחכם ואסר – לא ישאל לחכם ויתיר"

There is a fundamental dispute amongst the Rishonim as to the understanding of the reason for this Beraisa, and accordingly we will be able to shed light on the nature of psak.

The Ravad (cited by numerous Rishonim ibid) explains that the שואל cannot ask again because: “שויה חתיכה דאיסורא”; the first authority has “created an item of איסור”; that can’t be undone by another authority. In other words, the psak has had a tangible effect of the actual halachic status of the item asked about. This is a tremendous idea. You bring a questionable piece of meat to the Rav, the Rav issues his psak he turns it into a piece of treif. If he would’ve asked a different Rabbi, and received a lenient ruling it would be completely מותר; the Rabbi has redefined the halachic existence of the item. ([1] It is necessary to note that here is not synonymous with the same expression used in Kesubos (22a) and in Nedarim regarding the קבלה, the acceptance, of the שואל. The Ravad is not saying that the questioner is obliged to follow the ruling of the Rabbi because we assume that by asking he accepts the psak. This is not the understanding of the Ravad and the Poskim who follow his approach, as I will demonstrate through the examples below. See however the response of R’ Shimshon Raphael Hirsch “Shemesh U’Marpeh” Y.D. 52, who does seem to be of this understanding)

The Ran’s approach, however, in the above Beraisa, is based on כבוד מורה הראשון; it is considered to be an insult to the כבוד of the first authority to ask another Rabbi after the first has made his own ruling; it’s as if the שואל doesn’t rely on the knowledge and abilities of the first.

A Halachic Reality

I would like to demonstrate how essential this machlokes is by examining the different practical outcomes which result from this machlokes:

If the first authority would be consulted, and subsequently agree to the questioner asking another authority, according to the Ran there would be no impediment to ask again, as his honor is not diminished by doing so since he has agreed. However, in the Ravad’s understanding, it is an impossibility to redefine the existence of the item once it has been created (Ran ibid). ([2] With the exception of where a mistake has been made by the Rav, in which case the initial ruling had no potency. See the Ritva there and the Rema and Shach (cited below), for a discussion of which mistakes this is true for.)

What about monetary issues, where there is no ruling on a specific item “Kosher” or “Treif”, pure or impure, rather a psak of who is חייב to pay? The Ran and the Rashba (Chulin 44b) write that according to the Ravad there is nothing to stop him from asking again to asking again in monetary issues, since there is no חתיכה דאיסורא in ממונות. However, in the understanding of the Ran there is the same concern for the honor of the first Rabbi.

A final example, which is a very good illustration of the differing opinions above is a reversal of the above case. What if the first Rav ruled Kosher, and the questioner wishes to ask a second Rav – perhaps he will rule that the item is Treif. Now, according to the Ran there should be no difference; it is not befitting the honor of the first Rabbi to ask a second, regardless of the ruling of the first. However, if the reasoning is that there has been a “חלות” i.e. a halachic change or happening in the item itself, this only holds true when something becomes אסור. The psak of the Rav can only determine היתר but cannot create it, not so his ruling to forbid something. So in this case, when the first Rabbi ruled that it was permitted, there would be no problem seeking the advice of another authority; maybe he would be machmir (Ritva Avodah Zara ibid).

L’halacha

Le’maaseh: The Shach (Y.D. 242:58,59) and the Chochmas Odom (52) both rule like the Ravad. This position is also reinforced by the Netziv (Meshiv Davar 2,9). The Rema, however, (seemingly) follows the understanding of the Ran. When Hagaon R’ Moshe Sternbuch was consulted about the halacha, he told me we follow both rulings, l’chumra. That’s important to know. As I explained above how we understand the nature of psak is going to have important practical differences in the application of the halacha.

On General Issues

One final caveat. The whole discussion here about the essence and power of psak only holds true to a ruling made on a specific item: e.g. the Rav is consulted about the kashrus of the chicken; or the beracha on a food, however, regarding a general halachic enquiry: for example, what is the halacha if I forget יעלה ויבא on Rosh Chodesh, should I follow a certain practice or minhag, the above discussion is not relevant. In such a situation there is no physical item for a חלות of psak to become active (Chut Shani, Y.D. 188). I look forward to sharing, in a future post, how it is in such questions that a ruling can obligate the שואל to follow the words of the Rabbi.

Public shaming as blood sport has to stop - Monica Lewinsky

New Yorker   Monica Lewinsky and the Shame Game

A frightening, terrible thing about shame is how difficult it is to dispel. Guilt, at least, can be absolved through action. You apologize to the friend you gossiped about; you donate ten per cent of the $6.3 million cash bonus you got as the C.E.O. of Goldman Sachs to charity. Guilt is the discomfort that comes from recognizing that you’ve done something wrong, or failed to do something right. It’s an emotional accountability mechanism—the way that the self takes itself to task.

Shame, on the other hand, is a social feeling, born from a perception of other people’s disgust, a susceptibility to their contempt and derision. You see yourself from the point of view of your detractors; you pelt yourself with their revulsion, and as you do you begin, like Cassio, to lose track of the self altogether. Someone else’s narrow, stiffened vision of who you are replaces your own mottled, expansive one. As Lewinsky listened to the recordings of her phone calls, she tells us, she heard her voice as if it belonged to a different person: “My sometimes catty, sometimes churlish, sometimes silly self being cruel, unforgiving, uncouth.” It was “the worst version of myself, a self I didn’t even recognize.”

That feeling of estrangement from the true, variegated self is expressed time and time again in “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed,” a new book by the journalist Jon Ronson, to be published by Riverhead next week. Ronson interviewed scores of people who have been cut down by collective vilification in our post-Lewinsky, social-media-soaked age. He wants to trace the shame phenomenon to its root, and the taxonomy that he comes up with includes those who have been shamed for doing dumb things in the professional realm (Jonah Lehrer making up those Bob Dylan quotes; the former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey creating a bogus official post for his secret male Israeli lover); those who have been shamed for doing dumb things in what they mistakenly considered to be the private realm (Justine Sacco, the P.R. person who sent out an unfortunate joke about AIDS in Africa to her two-hundred-odd Twitter followers before boarding a plane to Johannesburg, only to discover, when she landed, that her tweet had gone viral and that she had lost her job); those who have been shamed for doing things that seem perfectly acceptable by any common measure, public or private; and those who have been shamed for spuriously shaming others. (These last two are linked in a kind of reputation murder-suicide, in which a woman at a tech conference, overhearing a man making an anodyne joke to his friend, published his photo on her blog along with a post claiming that he had made her feel unsafe. He immediately lost his job; in what passes for virtual justice, she was then flooded with rape and death threats, and was fired in turn.) [...]

=========================================

Epstein Torture for Get trial: Rabbi Jachter testifies -(not as reported Rav Herschel Schacter)

NJ.com    The son of a Lakewood rabbi accused of arranging the beatings of men who wouldn't give their wives religious divorces was in a meeting in Ohio when one of the attacks occurred, a business associate told jurors in an ongoing federal kidnapping and conspiracy trial.

The testimony of Greg Emmer, vice president and chief marketing officer for Kaeser & Blair Inc., was offered Thursday as an alibi for David "Ari" Epstein, who is accused of participating in the Aug. 22, 2011, attack on a Brooklyn man who would not give his wife a religious divorce.

That man, Usher Chaimowitz, eventually agreed to the divorce after hours of beatings. Chaimowitz's roommate, Menachem Teitelbaum, who was also beaten in the attack, testified earlier in the trial that he heard one of the assailants yell, "Epstein, call your father."

Federal prosecutors contend the reference was to David Epstein and his father, Mendel Epstein, a prominent Lakewood rabbi who specializes in divorce proceedings. The father and son, along with rabbis Binyamin Stimler and Jay Goldstein, are on trial on kidnapping and conspiracy charges that grew out of a federal sting..[...]

Another defense witness, Rabbi Howard Jachter, discussed the process of obtaining religious divorces. Attorney Nathan Lewin, who represents Stimler, asked Jachter about items taken from vehicles when several men including Stimler, were arrested after a sting operation in Edison in October 2013. [...]

The sting involved an undercover FBI agent posing as an Orthodox Jewish woman whose husband wouldn't grant her a religious divorce. The men were arrested at a warehouse in Edison where federal prosecutors contend they were ready to beat the husband until he relented. [...]

Federal prosecutors displayed on a large television screen photographs of Stimler wearing a face mask and Goldstein's son Avrohom Goldstein, wearing a Halloween mask, that they allegedly wore at the Edison warehouse.

A Frum Survivor Tells Her Story Publicly - For the First Time Jewish Community Watch