Mother flees to protect her child from female "husband"

The biological mother in a lesbian relationships decides to repent and leaves her partner to whom she is legally married to in Vermont. The partner demands visitation rights - and the mother flees the country with her daughter to save her from her immoral partner.

NYTimes  Lisa Miller and Janet Jenkins met at an Alcoholics Anonymous meeting in Falls Church, Va., in 1997. In later interviews, with supporters and her lawyers, Ms. Miller described growing up with a mentally unstable mother and dealing with her own problems of pill addictions, food disorders and self-mutilation. After a failed marriage and a suicide attempt, she said, she began seeing women.

Ms. Jenkins, when they met, had recently ended a long-term relationship with a woman.

“It was a normal courtship, and we fell in love,” Ms. Jenkins recalled. “We wanted to have a family and spend the rest of our lives together.” 

They became pioneers of sorts: in 2000, soon after Vermont became the first state to offer civil unions, they traveled there to seal the relationship, adopting the joint surname Miller-Jenkins. 

When Ms. Miller decided to get pregnant through in vitro fertilization, they picked a donor with Ms. Jenkins’s green eyes. Isabella Ruth Miller-Jenkins was born in Virginia on April 16, 2002. Ms. Jenkins cut the umbilical cord as her own mother, Ruth, stood in the room. 

Preferring to raise a family in a state that endorsed same-sex relationships, the couple moved to southern Vermont. They bought a two-story house within walking distance of a grade school in Fair Haven, a small town known for Victorian houses and summer music on the village green. 

Ms. Miller later said in interviews that even before the move, she was rediscovering Christianity and questioning her lesbianism. During her difficult pregnancy with Isabella, “I promised God that if he would save my baby, I would leave the homosexual lifestyle,” she said in notes she left for one of her lawyers, Rena M. Lindevaldsen, associate dean of the Liberty University Law School. Ms. Lindevaldsen describes the notes in “Only One Mommy,” New Revolution Publishers, her 2011 book on Ms. Miller and what she calls the threat of “the homosexual lifestyle.”

Polygamy - a Mormon family with 3 wives

Time Magazine  Polygamy is one of the few practices that still evoke genuine disgust in people. It’s a watchword for ignorance, sexual depredation, oppression of women and weird, culty outfits. But spurred on by the same-sex marriage debate and more-sympathetic portrayals of polygamists and polyamorists in our larger culture, some plural families are coming out of the shadows and beginning to advocate for their way of life.

One of these families, the Dargers, independent fundamentalist Mormons, invited me into their home to check out how they live. I report about it in the Aug. 6 issue of TIME, which subscribers can read here. The Dargers are a model non-monogamous family. They’re attractive, they dress well, and they labor mightily to provide for their 23 kids.

This helps because their setup is pretty weird: Joe, the patriarch, is married to three women, two of whom are identical twin sisters. He married one of those sisters (Vicki) and another woman (Alina) at the same time, after dating them at the same time, all at the women’s consent. It gets weirder. Val, the other twin, was married to another polygamous guy and had five kids with him before she fled. Vicki and Alina told Joe that he should marry her too, they say. So he did.

But for a deeply unconventional family, they look pretty normal. (Watch a video about their life here.) They live together in a cheerfully messy house outside Salt Lake City, with three master bedrooms, boatloads of items bought in bulk and eye-watering amounts of laundry.

Pilegesh: Sh.Aruch E.H. 26:1 - Summary of Views

The basic question is whether pilegesh represents an alternative form of marriage based on equality rather than subordination - which has minimum responsibility and benefits but is also readily ended without the problem of Aguna  or whether it constitutes a relationship based primarily on lust and irresponsibility and thus is harmful to society, family and the individual. In the following posting I plan to summaries the different views as found in Otzer haPoskim.

Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 26:1): A woman is not considered an eishes ish (married woman) except by means of kiddushin in which she is properly sanctified. However if their relation is just fornication - not for the sake of kiddushin – she is not considered a married woman at all. Even if they have sexual relations for the purpose of marriage – which they agree to privately between them – she is not considered his wife even if he designates her to be exclusively for him. In fact not only is she not considered his wife but we force him to remove her from his house. Rema:  That is because a woman in such a relationship will be embarrassed to go to mikveh and consequently they will have sexual relations when she is a niddah (Tur). However if she is designated for an exclusive relationship with him and she goes to mikve there are those that say that is the pilegesh mentioned in the Torah  (Ravad). And some say (Rambam, Rosh  and Tur)  that such a relationship is punished by lashes because it violates the prohibition of kadesha (prostitute) Devarim (23:18).

 Does a pilegesh have kiddushin or not? If there is no kiddushin does that mean that a get is not required? Kesubos 51 states that a pilegesh has no kiddushin and has no kesuba. This question ultimately is whether a pilegesh is an eishes ish or not.  If she is not an eishes eish then does that mean she is a kadesha or zona?

The Otzer haPoskim simon 26 divdes the halachic views into a number of groups

1) Pilgesh is prohibited because we have a positive command to have kiddushin

2) Pilegesh is prohibited because she is not an eishes ish which can only be produced through kiddushin and therefore she is considered a prostitute

3) Pilegesh is only permitted for a king - and there is no kiddushin or kesuba - for an ordinary person she is considered a prostitute.

4) Pilegesh is prohibited by rabbinic decree

5) Pilegesh is permitted

6) Pilegesh is permitted by the Torah but it is morally destructive and therefore it is prohibited.

7) Pilgesh is permitted by the Torah but it constitutes an additional wife which is prohibited by Rabbeinu Gershom

8) Pilegesh is in fact permitted but has not been done for many years - but in situations of need it can be permitted.

In addition there is a major dispute as to whether kiddushin and a Get is required. Furthermore there are some such as Tosfos (Gittin 6a) which imply that the problem with pilegesh is maris ayin (rather than eishis ish) because people think she is an eishes ish. Therefore it is the minhag not to take her back if she has an affair with other men and similarly that she is given a get if she wants to quit the relationship.

 [to be continued]

Molester Andrew Goodman now faces possible life sentence

NYDaily News  A convicted child molester who got off with a measly two-year sentence from a Brooklyn judge was slapped with federal charges Wednesday that could put him away for the rest of his life.

When Andrew Goodman was sentenced in state Supreme Court last month on 48 counts of sexually abusing two young brothers, the creep professed his love for one of the victims, who was present in the courtroom.

But Goodman now faces a damning complaint charging him with the interstate transportation of a minor for the purpose of sexual assault.

Goodman, 27, is accused of traveling with the then-15-year-old victim in February 2010 to Atlantic City where he raped and sodomized the boy in a hotel room. If convicted, Goodman faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison and a maximum of life .

Chareidim flock to museum exhibit about Chassidim

JPost   The traditional way that hassidic men wear their coat is with the right side closed over the left side. This is because the right symbolizes mercy and the left symbolizes judgment, and they want their clothing to be an expression of the wish that God’s mercy will triumph over all.

This is just one of the tidbits from the Israel Museum’s exhibit on hassidic Judaism called “A World Apart Next Door: Glimpses into the Life of Hassidic Jews.” Surprisingly, though, the most enthusiastic visitors to the exhibit are not the secular public but haredim (ultra-Orthodox).

Despite the fact that the museum is open on Shabbat, haredim from all sects, both hassidic and non-hassidic, have come to the museum in record numbers since the exhibit opened on June 19. It runs until December 1.

Exhibit curator Ester Muschawsky-Schnapper, a 30- year veteran of the museum, believes haredim are drawn to the exhibit for two reasons. First, because their communities are fairly isolated even within haredi neighborhoods, and there’s the natural curiosity to see how other ultra- Orthodox sects celebrate their traditions. The second reason haredim are drawn to the exhibit is to understand how the outside world views their community.

Channel 10's report: Chareidim working on sly

YNet Tens of thousands of haredim are focused on studying the Torah in order to defend Israel, which is why they are exempt from military service under the Tal Law – but what is actually happening on the haredi street?

Israel's Channel 10 filmed an investigative report that shows how the military service deferral is exploited for profit at the State's expense.

When one yeshiva student candidate was asked if he had a problem with pay slips he responded that he did, because of the army. He then says that he was previously employed under the table. When asked how he was paid he explained that the pay slip went to someone else and eventually he received cash.

If it became known to the authorities that the student worked, he would not only have to pay income tax, but would also lose out on benefits worth thousands of shekels.

Black Hebrews of America & Conservative Judaism

The title of this article in the Forward is misleading as all it means is that they now view themselves as Jewish rather than a separate group and their acceptance is limited to Conservative & probably Reform Jews.

Forward  While they once called themselves Hebrew Israelites exclusively to distinguish themselves from Jews of European extraction, the black Jews now readily count themselves among the Jewish people without qualification. An increasing number seek out formal conversion, a practice previously seen only as a concession to the expectations of mainstream Jews. Some 85% of the members at Beth Shalom have done so, according to Rabbi Capers Funnye (pronounced Fun-NAY), their spiritual leader, who is himself a member of the mainstream Chicago Board of Rabbis (and cousin to First Lady Michelle Obama).[...]

The Hebrew Israelites’ Jewish practice began more than 90 years ago, when Wentworth A. Matthew, an immigrant to New York from the West Indies, established a Harlem congregation known as the Commandment Keepers in 1920. Matthew, revered as the founding rabbi of the movement, also created a precursor to the Israelite Rabbinical Academy, which trained rabbis to lead prayers and rituals fashioned after the Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews who were his neighbors in Harlem. [...]

As if echoing history, black Jews in the US today feel a connection to African groups who identify as Jews. Funnye has traveled to Nigeria, South Africa, and Uganda to connect with and assist in the education of the Lemba, Igbo, and Abayudyah — ethnic groups with members who assert a Jewish identity. A bridge-builder, Funnye is associate director of Be’chol Lashon (In Every Tongue), a San Francisco-based nonprofit that advocates for inclusiveness and diversity among the Jewish people and sponsors his work in Africa.[...]

As he began rabbinical training, Brazelton chose for pragmatic reasons to undergo a Conservative conversion, although Hebrew Israelites feel it should not be necessary. “We think of it as ‘reversion,’ not conversion,” Yahath said. “I did it to remove any doubts in the minds of others.” Funnye, his mentor, was raised as a Methodist and had a formal conversion himself for the same reason. For those in his congregation, the process generally includes 18 months of study and meeting the requirements of Chicago’s Conservative beit din. There are no data on how many of the Hebrew Israelites, who Funnye says number some 10,000 nationally, have undergone formal conversions. [...]

Sholomo ben Levy, the Israelite Board of Rabbis president, sees lack of acceptance by mainstream Jews as a disappointment. But he believes the emerging awareness of diversity offers an opportunity. Levy, who also serves as spiritual leader of Beth Elohim in Queens, said, “We not only have a diversity of complexion, but a diversity of experiences. In the past, when [mainstream Jews] have reached out to us it was tentatively, wanting us to be more like them instead of asking what we can bring to Judaism that is part of our culture. If we can celebrate the diversity that exists, we will all be more successful.”

Silicon Valley warns of device addiction

NYTimes  Stuart Crabb, a director in the executive offices of Facebook, naturally likes to extol the extraordinary benefits of computers and smartphones. But like a growing number of technology leaders, he offers a warning: log off once in a while, and put them down. 

In a place where technology is seen as an all-powerful answer, it is increasingly being seen as too powerful, even addictive.

The concern, voiced in conferences and in recent interviews with many top executives of technology companies, is that the lure of constant stimulation — the pervasive demand of pings, rings and updates — is creating a profound physical craving that can hurt productivity and personal interactions. 

R' Moshe Feinstein: Pilegesh no kiddushin or get

שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק א סימן עד

ומה שמפקפק כתר"ה מהא דפילגש שהיא בלא קידושין ומשמע מגמ' סנהדרין דף כ"ב דצריכה כל אחת מהן גירושין שהוא גט להרמב"ם פ"ג ממלכים ה"ב שגם הפילגשים היו בכלל הי"ח נשים שהיו לדוד, הנה מפורש שם בלח"מ לדבר פשוט שלא היתה צריכה גט כיון דאין לו בה קידושין אלא יחוד בעלמא וכמה קשין גירושין שאמר בגמ' אינו בגט אלא לגרשה מביתו כדי ליקח אחרת נמי הם קשין. ועיין במאירי סנהדרין שבפלגשים של מלך מותרות למלך אחר ואפילו לבנו שכתב שאבישג היתה מותרת לשלמה ואפילו היתה נבעלת לדוד ומשום אשת אב אין כאן שהרי נושא אדם אנוסת ומפותת אביו, הרי מפורש דפילגש שבלא קידושין אינה בדין א"א כלל וא"כ ודאי אין שייך להצריכה גט. וכן מפורש ברלב"ג בפירושו לשמואל דאבשלום לא עבר איסור חמור דאשת אביו משום שפילגשים היו בלא קידושין. איברא דבאגדה איתא הובא בילקוט שמואל שאחיתופל יעץ שיבא על פילגשי אביו כדי שיתחייב מיתה על שבא על אשת אביו, וכן בירושלמי פ"ב דיבמות מוכיח מדוד שנשא רצפה בת איה שאשת חמיו אינה אסורה דין תורה הובא בתוס' יבמות דף כ"א, והרי רצפה בת איה היתה פילגש שאול ואם פילגש כיון שהיא בלא קידושין אין דינה כאשתו איזה ראיה היא לאשת חמיו שאינה אסורה, אבל לא קשה כלום דהירושלמי לטעמיה בכתובות פ' אף על פי ה"ב דפילגש היא נמי בקידושין עיין שם וא"כ פשוט שגם המאמר אגדה שבילקוט נמי סובר כהירושלמי דפילגש הוא בקידושין. והוא גם דלא כשירי קרבן שמחלק בין פילגשי הדיוט לפילגשי מלך דפילגשי מלך גם להירושלמי הם בלא קידושין דהא מירושלמי דרצפה בת איה מוכרח שסובר דגם של מלך היו בקידושין. על כל פנים מפורש בדברי רבותינו הראשונים דפילגש שבלא קידושין א"צ גט ומותרת לקרוביו כדין מפותתו והאגדה והירושלמי הוא משום שסברי דהיה בקידושין,

Faith or self-deception? - 20 burned at firewalk

NYTimes    Thousands participated in the walk, which stretched down 24 lanes, each around eight feet long. “It transformed people’s lives in a single night,” said Carolynn Graves, 50, a real estate agent from Toronto, who crossed the coals without injury. “It’s a metaphor for facing your fears and accomplishing your goals.” 

A person connected to the Robbins group who helps facilitate the walks over hot coals, but who did not want his name disclosed because he was not authorized to speak publicly, said, “This is not without risk.” Mr. Robbins, he added, “spends a couple of hours preparing people.” 

He suggested that those who were hurt must have “slowed down and stopped because they didn’t feel anything. Those are the folks who end up sometimes with hot spots.” Traditionally, he added, the coals reach a temperature of 2,000 degrees — “give or take 100 degrees.” 

“I won’t say it never happens,” the man said. “But I’ve never heard of anyone having third-degree burns. A couple of times people have had second-degree burns.” Mr. Robbins advises people “to soak their feet in cold water for 20 minutes,” he said. 

“People don’t come to this and not participate,” he added.

Pilegesh inTalmudic Texts - Kesubah & Kedushin?

This is 5 out 10 pages of an article which appeared in  Sinai #73 pages 127-137. The contradictory & unclear textual basis in Talmudic literature explains in part why there is such confusion as to the nature of pilegesh

Pilegesh in Talmudic Texts

Letter of the Steipler to Rav Eliashiv regarding pilegesh

מכתב ממרן חגר''י קנייבםקי זצוק''ל למרן הברי"ש אלישיב שליט''א

‏

בעניך איסור פילגש ובעניני גירות

יום עש"ק פרשת שמיני ה'תש"כ.

לכבוד מחותני הגאון הגדול פאר הדור וכ'· מוהררש"י [אלישיב] שליט''א 

‏
אחרי הקדמת השלו'· בכל הכבוד כבוד התורה, הגיעני מכתב הדר"ג שליט"א בע"פ ותאורנה עיני בתשובתו הנפלאה לאמיתה של תורה, ורב תשו''ח לחדר"ג שליט"א, המקום ב"ה יהא בעזרו לרבות פעלים לתורה"ק
.

‏במה שכתבתי דאת"ל דאינה מקודשת כלל אין כאן איסור משהה אשה בלא כתובה, דהו''ל כפילגש מאחר שמיוחדת לו עכ"ל ודאי ידעתי שהרמב"ם ז"ל אוסר פילגש להדיוט, ויש השמטת דברים במכתבי, וצ"ל "להפוסקים דפילגש שרי להדיוט", וכעת עיינתי בסימן כ"ו ובח"מ וב"ש וביאור הגר''א ז"ל, וכנראה שרוב הפוסקים חולקים על הרמב"ם ז"ל בזה, וכ"כ בנוב"ת סימן קל"ב [שרמזו הפ"ת] שאין הלכה בזה כהרמב"ם ז"ל, ולעניך איסור דרבנן שכתב הח"מ, אולי בשעת הדחק יש לסמוך אהרמב"ן ז"ל ודעימיה שאפילו מדרבנן שרי, ומ"מ בחשש דאורייתא מי יקיל ראש נגד הרמב"ם ז"ל
 .

‏והנה הדר"ג שליט"א השיג עלי ואפי' המתירים פילגש אינו אלא ביודע שאינה קנויה לו ומתכוין לשם "פילגש" ולא בקידושי טעות וראיה מדאמרינן בקידשה על תנאי ואין אדם עשוה ב"ז, ואס"ד דשרי בכה"ג א"כ אין זה ביאת זנות, ולכאו' תמהתי דאינו דומה כלל לנידון דידן, דודאי כשקידשה על תנאי ויודע הספק ומתכוין שאם אין הדבר כתנאו ישלחנה הו"ל ביא"ז, דהא עושה בעילתו בדרך אקראי [דאם לא יתקיים התנאי], ולא דרך אישות, אבל כשאינו יודע כלל מענין המום כנידון דידן, ובועל דרך אישות בתורת בעל גמור, אפשר דאין זה ביא"ז כיון שבעילתו דרך אישות ולא דרך אקראיי ולא גרע ממיוחדת לו
.

‏ולאחר העיון בזה ראיתי שהצדק עם כבוד הדר"ג שליט"א, שכן משמע בתשובת הרמב"ן ז"ל המיוחסות סימן רפ"ד [שרמזו הב"ש], דכל שאינו מייחדה לשם פילגש אלא רוצה שתהא אשתו, איכא איסור עשה אם בועל כשאינה מקודשת לו' יעויי"ש .

‏ועל דברי הנתיבות המשפט סימן רל''ד סק"ג דאיסור דרבנן בשוגג אינו עבירה, ‏ראיתי מכבר באור שמח פ"א מהל' גירושין הי"ז שהשיג על זה טובא.

למעשה לבי נוקפי מאוד, ואפילו אם נעשה ספק ונתלה שאעפ"י שחושבת ברי שנבעלה מ"מ אינו אלא דמיון כוזב. כי באותה שעה לא שמח לב בקטנותה על מהות המעשה ממש כיצד היה, מ"מ אולי תאמר שהיה אז דם בתולים וזה הלא היה דבר מבורר אצלה בראיית עינים, ולא ידעתי איך אשיב שולחי דבר, כיון שהדר"ג שליט"א לא כתב לי מסקנא החלטית למעשה .

Rav Sternbuch:Pilegesh & Civil Marriage

Rav Moshe Sternbuch (2:642): Concerning one who has rejected religion it would seem that he does not require a Get from a civil marriage. This is according to the view of the Rogitshover who explains that in civil marriage there is a need for a get because she is considered a pilegesh. However it would seem that the case of civil marriage is not comparable to the case of pilegesh. That is because in the case of pilegesh the intent of the couple is to have a relationship according to the Torah. According to the Torah a pilegesh is exclusively for him and prohibited to others. This is not comparable to the modern irreligious people who have totally rejected the obligations of the Torah. In the case of a genuine pilegesh the woman is required to know that she is a pilegesh according to Torah law and that she is prohibited to others according to the Torah. In such a case she would be need a Get according to Torah law as is stated in the Bi’ur HaGra (260:26). In contrast in the case of someone who has rejected Torah and comes to us – my view is to be machmir l’chatchila only because of the reasons I mentioned above [that we are concerned for the minority view of Rav Huna that Chupa acquires]. However if insistence on a Get will create an aguna then there is no reason to be machmir as I stated previously

D.A. Hynes:Against Rabbincal screening

Jewish Week  Intimidation aside, what is your impression about how often rabbis are discouraging people from coming forward when asked for advice?

Hynes: What I’ve said to [Agudath Israel vice president] Chaim Dovid Zwiebel is that his suggestion that rabbis have to screen is wrong for two reasons: One, rabbis have no expertise in this area to determine what reaches a level for reporting, and what he’s doing is putting the rabbis in a very dangerous position; because one of these days a rabbi is going to make a mistake cross the line and tell someone under no circumstances are they to report abuse and they are going to be indicted for obstructing governmental administration. I made it very, very clear to Dovid that was my position.

Do you view this the same as witness tampering or witness intimidation? Are there constitutional issues protecting a rabbi’s advice?

Hynes: You’re changing the fact pattern. Why don’t you stay with my fact pattern? My fact pattern is, a rabbi says under no circumstances should you report this, that’s crossing a line. If a rabbi says mesirah prohibits you from reporting then that’s something I can’t deal with; I can’t  pierce that religious connection.

In fact in the legislation I submitted to state DA’s Association’s legislative committee — which has now been passed on to the executive committee for the summer — specifically says in cases of confession or confidential communication to a religious person, whether a rabbi or a minister that would not require mandatory reporting. Mandatory reporting would be finding out about abuse of a third party. There is no reason why clergy should not be mandatory reporters as far as I’m concerned. Twenty-six states in this country have mandatory requirements, only two of them have clergyman-penitent exception: Remarkably, 24 do not. In New Hampshire and West Virginia, despite the clergy-penitent exception they require mandatory reporting in those cases where sex abuse of a third party is involved. There is no reason you can’t have that here for clergy as well.

You said earlier that rabbis don’t have the judgment to assess cases. Agudath Israel has said they are offering training courses for rabbis.

Hynes: I think he has backed away from that. The danger in that … I don’t think a clergy person has the ability or even should have the authority to do screening. The only thing I can do to get around this is hope I can get support in the legislature to change the mandatory reporting to include members of the clergy.