Mitt Romney at Yeshiva University

The Left fears Israel's demographics

Haaretz   This week, as children returned to school, another public servant, Deputy Education Minister Rabbi Menachem Eliezer Moses, was quoted at a gathering of Haredi school principals saying with satisfaction that this year, for the first time, a majority of children in Israeli kindergartens are either ultra-Orthodox or religious. It was a misleading statistic - Moses was not including Arab children in his calculations and not all the children enrolled in religious kindergartens are actually religious. Many parents place them there for the longer hours or simply because they are closer to their homes and next year they will continue in secular schools. But the Haredi rabbis who privately despise the national-religious for their compromises with modernity are happy to include them in their camp when it pushes secular Israelis into a minority. Today the kindergarten - tomorrow the Knesset. 

But despite Malthusian demographic trends indicating a joint Haredi-settler majority in Israel by 2050, both Moses and Levanon are aware how tenuous their advantage could be. None of the current trends are inexorable. As the Haredi community grows, the hold of its ancient leaders over a generation who have grown up in the 21st Century is rapidly eroding and the trickle of defections will increase to a torrent. The growing number of West Bank settlers is also misleading. Three-quarters live in comfortable suburbs by the Green Line, easily absorbed into the sovereign Israeli state as part of a two-state solution which a clear majority of Israelis still support. 

The fundamentalists see their majority beckoning on the horizon if only they can hold on for another 20 years, perpetuating the settlement program and shutting off their young from outside influences. It is impossible to foresee whether they will prevail, but we are giving them a much better chance of success by not listening to what they say.

Priest-Therapist blames some Victims of Sexual Abuse

NYTimes   A prominent Roman Catholic spiritual leader who has spent decades counseling wayward priests for the archdiocese provoked shock and outrage on Thursday as word spread of a recent interview he did with a Catholic newspaper during which he said that “youngsters” were often to blame when priests sexually abused them and that priests should not be jailed for such abuse on their first offense.

“Suppose you have a man having a nervous breakdown, and a youngster comes after him,” Father Groeschel, now 79, said in the interview. “A lot of the cases, the youngster — 14, 16, 18 — is the seducer.”

He added that he was “inclined to think” that priests who were first-time abusers should not be jailed because “their intention was not committing a crime.”

Assault on Aharon Friedman - reward for information

Reward Poster

Modesty in requesting marital relations

 This is material that I am trying to understand for my latest sefer on the Torah understanding of gender and sexuality. The point is that we have what is an accepted halacha and yet the Seforno, Malbim and Torah Temima acknowledge the pshat of the verse is against the halacha.

Leah is used in Eiruvin 100b as proof that a woman is not supposed to verbalize her desires - and yet Leah apparently did. The gemora indicates that are apparently two views in Chazal and yet it concludes there is only one.

=====================================
Meiri (Eiruvin 100b):  Even though the attribute of modesty (tznius) is praiseworthy for everyone – nevertheless it is more praiseworthy for women.  In spite of this whoever makes themselves beloved to their husbands and entice them to the mitzva of sexual relations – this is not considered pritzus (immodesty) but rather zariz (alacrity) to do the mitzva and it is a desirable characteristic. She is rewarded for her concern with this mitzva by having proper children. That is because her intent is only for children. The Torah has already given an example of the appropriateness of this concerning Leah, And Leah went out to meet Yaakov and told him that he was to sleep with her that night instead of Rachel (Bereishis 30:16).

Bereishis (30:16):  And Yaakov came from the field in the evening and Leah went out to meet him. And she said to him, You shall come to me [tonight] because I have paid for you with the mandrakes of my son. And he lay with her that night.

Eiruvin (100b): R. Samuel b. Nahmani citing R. Johanan stated: A woman who solicits her husband to the [marital] obligation will have children the like of whom did not exist even in the generation of Moses. For of the generation of Moses it is written: Get you from each one of your tribes, wise men and understanding, and full of knowledge, and then it follows: So I took the heads of your tribes, wise men and full of knowledge. while men of ‘understanding’ he could not find, whereas in the case of Leah it is written in Scripture, ‘And Leah went out to meet him, and said: Thou must come unto me, for I have surely hired thee, and subsequently it is written, ‘And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel ought to do, the heads of them were two hundred, and all their brethren were at their commandment. But can that be right? seeing that R. Isaac b. Abdimi stated: Eve was cursed with ten curses, ... ’ And he shall rule over you - this teaches that a woman asks with her heart while her husband asks directly for intercourse. This is a good attribute in women. In other words she acts seductive and ingratiates herself with him but does not directly say what she wants.

Torah Temima (Bereishis 9:16.4): In other words from this pregnancy Yissachar was born as is states explicitly in the Torah. The gemora (Eiruvin 100b)  asserts  that she didn’t ask Yaakov directly for sexual intercourse because to do so is a disgusting behavior and her children would have been called the children of brazeness [ instead of praising her]. In fact she seduced him by showing her strong feelings of love. But the language of the Torah apparently contradicts this explanation since she is quoted as saying, “You shall come to me [i.e., have sexual relations]”. However this phrase is to be understood that she meant that he should come to her tent but not that she was saying she wanted sexual intercourse....

In contrast others sources seem to assume Leah spoke bluntly and directly - but since she was on a much higher spiritual level - we can not learn that it is permitted for women today to speak this way.

Rashi (Bereishis 30:16): I hired you tonight – I paid Rachel [to be with you tonight]. 

Malbim (Bereishis 30:16): And she said to Yaakov , You are to come to me. This teaches that her intent was solely for the sake of Heaven. Therefore she wasn’t embarrassed to speak this way. That is because she had no lust which would have caused her embarrassment. This was like Adam prior to the Sin that he and Eve were naked and did not feel shame.

Seforno (Bereishis 30:16): You are to come to me since I hired you. And she did not do an injustice with her behavior in taking away the sexual rights of her sister since it was done with her knowledge and agreement. At first glance this story seems to be disgusting to those who look for excuses to say negative things about the Torah. In fact we learn from this that the Avos were similar to Adam and Eve prior to the Sin. Their intent was not at all for their own pleasure but was solely for the sake of Heaven to establish descendants for the honor of G‑d and to serve Him. We learn from this that since the intent of the Matriarchs was pleasing to G‑d in their efforts ... Their prayers were accepted. That is because it is appropriate for a tzadik to make efforts according to nature as much as possible to obtain that which he desires and to also pray that he succeed. Our Sages note that G‑d desires the prayers of Tzadikim (Yevamos 64a).

Religious leaders decree tight clothing inappropriate for men

YNet  A new decree signed by top Israeli rabbis this week prohibits devout men from wearing tight pants.

"Every Jewish man is mandated by the holy Torah to dress modestly in loose-fitting clothing," read the edict, which was published in the ultra-Orthodox media. 

The public service messages were accompanied by pictures of Jewish men in times of old dressed in loose, gown-like attire.

Fluff allegation about Mary Murphy's reporting on Bobov - Rejoinder

I would like to take up your offer to post my rejoinder [to your post about Mary Murphy].

You have my full permission to post it, in its entirety, as long as I am credited and there is a link to my posting.

Thanking you in advance,

Yerachmiel Lopin

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

Just a couple of observations.

 1) Lopin is the one who concluded that there was a coverup - not Mary Murphy. He claims based on earlier reports - her report confirms that there was a coverup.

2) Lopin states, I keep saying, “If true,” because Rabbi Eidensohn bases his dismissal of the story on the premise that Mary Murphy is a dumb, sloppy or dishonest reporter. He doesn’t explicitly say it but why else would he dismiss a report that documents molesting and a cover-up. Lopin is correct I never said that Mary Murphy is a dumb, sloppy or dishonest reporter. I did say that the report on this topic was a poor job and that certain facts were not verified and those that were presented were not clearly presented in context. This is especially problematic for a reporter who has won 18 emmies for her reporting! He says ,"why else would he dismiss a report that documents molestering and a coverup". It is strange because in my post I explained very clearly why I dismissed the report. She never confirmed that her informant was a parent as he claimed. If she had evidence of a coverup why didn't she present it to the police? If she did why did they dismiss it and concluded that there was no basis for the allegations?  My point is that is one must conclude either the police or Mary Murphy is wrong. I accept the conclusions of the police.

3) The police investigated the allegations and reported that there were no basis to the allegations. If there is evidence presented that makes the police change their minds -I would have no problem of accepting that there was abuse and a coverup. However Mary Murphy has only reported allegations,rumors and an anonymous person claiming to be a father who said that the kids were told not to talk to each other. That is not a coverup but is excellent advise to prevent interfering with the police investigation. If it was claimed that the kids were told not to speak to the police - then that would indicate a coverup. Mary Murphy did not reach such a conclusion.[to be continued]

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

IDF to send out draft notices to ultra-Orthodox Jews

Haaretz  The army will be sending first draft notices to some 7,500 ultra-Orthodox men in early September.

The notices will ask 17- and 18-year-old Haredim eligible to be drafted in 2013 to report to draft offices to begin the process of determining where they will serve. The notices are being sent because the Tal Law, which governed draft deferrals for Haredi yeshiva students, expired in August and the government hasn't yet managed to pass alternative legislation.

However, the chances that the army will actually enforce the draft notices are considered very low.

In 2013, Haredim will constitute 13 percent of all draft-age males. Currently, however, only about 30 percent of Haredim do either military service or alternative civilian service; most don't serve at all.

An Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism

A subtitle might be -  cleanliness and vaccines increase autoimmune disorders

NYTimes   So here’s the short of it: At least a subset of autism — perhaps one-third, and very likely more — looks like a type of inflammatory disease. And it begins in the womb.[...]

The lesson here isn’t necessarily that viruses and bacteria directly damage the fetus. Rather, the mother’s attempt to repel invaders — her inflammatory response — seems at fault. Research by Paul Patterson, an expert in neuroimmunity at Caltech, demonstrates this important principle. Inflaming pregnant mice artificially — without a living infective agent — prompts behavioral problems in the young. In this model, autism results from collateral damage. It’s an unintended consequence of self-defense during pregnancy. [...]

YET when you consider that, as a whole, diseases of immune dysregulation have increased in the past 60 years — and that these disorders are linked to autism — the question seems a little moot. The better question is: Why are we so prone to inflammatory disorders? What has happened to the modern immune system?

There’s a good evolutionary answer to that query, it turns out. Scientists have repeatedly observed that people living in environments that resemble our evolutionary past, full of microbes and parasites, don’t suffer from inflammatory diseases as frequently as we do.  [...]

Generally speaking, autism also follows this pattern. It seems to be less prevalent in the developing world. Usually, epidemiologists fault lack of diagnosis for the apparent absence. A dearth of expertise in the disorder, the argument goes, gives a false impression of scarcity. Yet at least one Western doctor who specializes in autism has explicitly noted that, in a Cambodian population rife with parasites and acute infections, autism was nearly nonexistent. [...]

Chareidi solider allegedly kicked out of shul

Jewish Press based on this bhol  Hebrew article

A Haredi IDF soldier was chased out of the Toldos Avraham Yitzchak shul on Monday morning, in the Beit Shemesh neighborhood of Nachala U’menucha, after appearing at Shacharit services in his uniform.

B’Hadrei Haredim reported that the soldier arrived at the shul, located at Hazon Ish Street, at about 10 AM, looking to participate in the morning service there.

Before entering the shul, he sat outside the building. One of the Chassidim passing by requested that the soldier “keep out.”

He explained to the soldier that since he was wearing the uniform of the “Army of the Zionist State,” he was not permitted to enter a shul whose members strongly advocate an anti-Zionist ideology.

Benefits of Circumcision Outweigh Risks, Pediatric Group Says

cbs

The nation's most influential pediatricians group says the health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh any risks and insurance companies should pay for it.

In its latest policy statement on circumcision, a procedure that has been declining nationwide, the American Academy of Pediatrics moves closer to an endorsement but says the decision should be up to parents.

"It's not a verdict from on high," said policy co-author Dr. Andrew Freedman. "There's not a one-size-fits-all-answer." But from a medical standpoint, circumcision's benefits in reducing risk of disease outweigh its small risks, said Freedman, a pediatric urologist in Los Angeles.

Reasons a wife refuses marital relations & possible solutions

Guest Post: by Bunsa Bayis

Please excuse my nonsequitor, but in connection to a previous post several days ago, the term "force" was debated in respect to compelling a woman to sleep with her husband. The Torah teaches that a woman's desire is for her husband, and the Torah is emes. So I've been mulling it over and, excuse my impertinence, but based on my twenty years plus of marriage and a wide circle of talkative friends, I've come up with a list of reasons why a woman would refuse relations and possible solutions to the problems. 

Note: NONE of the solutions include using force:

1) she feels physical pain before, during, or after intimacy = she should see a doctor
2) she has an aversion/fear of sex = she should see a psychiatrist
3) she is trying to manipulate her husband = he should see a divorce lawyer
4) she is angry with him = if it's a mutual quarrel, then he is forbidden to have relations with her anyway. If she's angry about something - whether its justifiable or not - she's probably not withholding sex as a means of punishment. She probably just can't bear to touch him in that emotional state. Remember, for women, the sex/love relationship is indivisible. First work out your conflicts, then get physical.
5) she feels hurt = if you know she's upset, then say the magic words. Something that seems small to you might loom large in her mind. It's not worth being insensitive. If you don't know that you hurt her feelings then she needs to learn a better way to communicate. But, "having a headache" may be her way of telling you that something is amiss.
6) she is exhausted = whether she works outside or not, the kids, the house, the mother-in-law.... Fatigue is the most common cause of "not tonight, dear", and it's legitimate = Use some sense. If she was up all last night with a colicky baby, don't take it personally if sleep is far more appealing to her than you are. If you can afford to get her cleaning help, then why haven't you yet? If you can, bring home takeout for supper once a week. If your budget can't afford it, then pick up a dishtowel or bathe the kids. I promise it won't emasculate you. Give her a neck-rub. Both of you get to bed earlier.
7) She doesn't feel romantic towards you= If the first quiet moments you spent together are when you get to bed, then you owe it to her to first connect emotionally and talk nicely to her (the gemara's words, not just mine!) and not about the kids or bills. Take her out to dinner once in a while. Flirt with her. Notice how she looks and compliment her. Give her a neckrub, or a spontaneous kiss when you're nowhere near the bedroom.
8) she's no longer attracted to you = well, did you shower and brush your teeth before you climbed into bed? Ask her to buy you a cologne that she likes. Make an effort to look good for her.
You see how many productive steps can be taken in a healthy marriage that don't require force? Just as a man craves respect, a woman wants to feel cherished.
I'll welcome any additions to my list but I'll bet there will be accompanying solutions that don't require force.

Bitul Seruv: Aharon Friedman/ Rav Gestetner

Bitul Seruv Aharon Friedman - R Gestetner

Defining Onas (force) by others

The issue of onas (force) is an important one in a number of halachic areas. I would like to review a number of relevant sources to get a clearer understanding of what onas means. Onas also needs to be distinguished from forcing oneself. This is a critical issue for the case of get me'usa as well as whether  a wife is prohibited to her husband after rape as well as defining rape itself. I will make a separate post of sources where the force is described as forcing oneself.

Kesubos (51b): Shmuel’s father said that the wife of a Jew who has been raped – is forbidden to her husband since we are concerned about the likelihood that even though she was forced to have sexual intercourse but at the end she willing enjoyed it. Rav raised an objection to Shmuel’s father, It says in her kesuba “that if you are captured I will redeem you and take you back as my wife”? Shmuel father was silent…. What could he have replied? That the law was relaxed in the case of a captive since her rape is only suspected. According to Shmuel father, what circumstances would a raped woman be permitted by the Torah to her husband? If there were witnesses that she cried during the rape - from the beginning to the end - she would be permitted to her husband. However this ruling differs from Rava. Rava ruled that even when intercourse began by compulsion but ended with consent and even if she said to not harm her assailant and even if he had not attacked her she would have hired him to do it – she is permitted to her husband. What is the reason? – He aroused in her an uncontrollable passion – which is a form of compulsion. There is a braissa which is in aggreement with Rava. It says in Bamidbar (5:13): That a woman is prohibited to her husband if she had intercouse without being seized. It follows from this that if she was seized than she is permitted to her husband. But there is another case that even though she wasn’t seized she is permitted. What is that? Any woman who began intercouse under compulsion but at the end was willing.

Beis Shaarim(O.H. 283):  The Ra’ah learned this din from the case of the women who was originally raped but at the end she was willing. In that case whether the beginning of the intercouse was forced by rape or by threatening to kill her – she did not get pleasure from the beginning of the intercourse but rather suffered… And at the end of the intercourse in which she has pleasure, that pleasure is itself forced as is stated in Kesubos (51b) because the lust is aroused. Rashi explains that it means that the pleasure is also forced… So that is true here where he is forced to eat i.e., the food is forced down his throat to a point it can’t come back. In such a case even though he gets pleasure from the food – he does not have to say a beracha on this pleasure  since it was forced and he can’t help but having pleasure. Similarly if they say he will be killed if he doesn’t eat so he is obligated to eat because of “Chai bahem” (You shall live by them) he is being forced to have this pleasure and therefore doesn’t have to say a beracha. However if they beat him to force him to eat and he has the ability to withstand the beating and not to eat but he decides he would rather eat then to received the blows – he is not considered as being forced to have the pleasure.

Rambam (Hilchos Sanhedrin 20:2): Whoever is forced to do something which is punishable by the death penalty – the court does not kill him. Even though it is for a matter for which he should rather die rather than transgress and even if his transgression caused a profanation of G‑d’s name but since he was forced he is not killed for it. This is learned from the case of a betrothed woman who is raped the verse says “Do not do anything to the woman.” This is a warning to the beis din not to punish someone who was forced to do the act.

Panim Yofas (Bamidbar 5:19): It says in Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 178:3) that if a woman was secluded with a man who subsequently raped her – she is prohibited to her husband since she caused the rape by being secluded with him. Also look at my comments to Kesubos (51b) where Shmuel’s father said that a married women who is raped is prohibited to her husband because we are concerning that while the beginning of intercourse was with force but she participated willingly at the end. The gemora there concludes however that she is permitted to her husband because uncontrollable lust was aroused by the forced intercourse. We prove there that she has a presumption of innocence. However when she transgresses the prohibition against seclusion with another man she loses that presumption of innocence because of the suspicion that she willing participated at the end…