Alshech: Harm of Talking a lot with one's Wife

Alshech (Vayikra 9:24): There is concern that by welcoming guests – as proposed by Avos 1:5 - into your home that some of them might become too friendly with your wife and this will lead to sin.The solution proposed by this mishna is that the husband should not talk a lot with his wife. This is to convey the message that if a man needs to reduce the idle chatter [sicha] he has with his own wife then surely he should not be talking a lot with the wife of another or becoming overly friendly with her. This is what is meant by,“And this prohibition of not talking a lot is in regard to his own wife.” Thus when people come to your house and they see you minimizing talking to your wife they will make the deduction that surely they should minimize talking to her because she is the wife of another. However such a solution will reasonably cause the husband to be concerned by a probable serious side effect of minimizing conversations with his wife.. He will reason, "If the Sages said that in order to prevent guests from talking too much to my wife that I need to minimize what I say to her – then there is a better solution. It is better not to have guests rather than to minimize having a close relationship with my wife and in particular in speaking with her.” In fact he will reasonably conclude that the mitzva of domestic tranquility is very important and that love between a man and his wife is more important than love amongst others. However his reasoning is rejected as can be seen by the fact that Rav Yehuda HaNasi (the editor of the Mishna) states that we do in fact learn that one must minimize talking to wives of other men even more so then to one’s own wife. That is  because he saw that Yossi ben Yochanon was not concerned with the possibility that minimizing conversation with ones wife would harm the marriage. In fact we learn from this that talking a lot with one’s wife does not result in love and domestic tranquility. The opposite is true. It actually produces much harm. There are three different types of harm. Firstly it causes harm to oneself since it leads to increased sexual relations - that even though that is permitted – it causes physical weakness & deterioration. It is also possible that this will result in premature aging which are called the days of evil. Secondly by spending a great deal of time in conversation with his wife – he forsakes Torah study. Thirdly because he becomes accustomed to spend an excessive amount of time with her, he will come to have sexual intercourse with her even when she is a niddah and thus he will directly sin. This will result in that he will end up going to Gehinom and not returning. That is described by this mishna (Avos 1:5) as “inheriting Gehiniom” since Gehinom will be all that he has.

the key to understand the above is what does the term sicha mean and what is "a lot"

Meiri(Avos 1:5): Don’t have too much sicha (idle conversation) with a woman. The term sicha means speech which has no real purpose which is why people say sicha betalila (conversation with no purpose). For example Avoda Zara (19b) regarding Torah scholars their sicha requires close study. In other words even when they seem to be simply conversing without purpose, there is substance in their words which needs to be carefully studied. Some issue might be alluded to in their words or character or ethics can be gleaned from them.

BBC covered up abuse by legendary children's entertainer -

Time Magazine   For millions of British children, Jimmy Savile was the TV presenter who promised to make their dreams come true. Now it appears he has been haunting the memories of some of them — and could be turning into a nightmare for his former employer, the BBC.

Savile, who died last year, hosted prime-time children’s shows in the U.K., including the wishes-come-true favorite, Jim’ll Fix It, and raised over £40 million ($64 million) for charity throughout his life. But in a documentary aired on British commercial television last week, five women claimed to have been raped, molested or forced to commit sexual acts on Savile when they were underage, often on the premises of the BBC, for whom Savile worked. Since the documentary aired, over 40 women have made similar allegations.

The BBC is now facing accusations of an institutional cover-up as it emerges that producers, press officers, executives and other presenters at the BBC were aware of Savile’s alleged behavior at the time. The publicly funded broadcaster buckled under pressure to acknowledge the “horrifying” allegations last week, vowing to support the police in any investigations, although it has insisted that there is “nothing to suggest any wrongdoing was ignored by management.” Prime Minister David Cameron has described the allegations as “deeply, deeply troubling” and hinted in a television interview that Savile could be posthumously stripped of his knighthood. [...]

Haredi parties - bitter internal struggles

Haaretz   Both ultra-Orthodox parties are heading for elections unwillingly, as both are embroiled in bitter internal struggles that could make it hard for them to preserve their current combined 16 Knesset seats. And fewer seats means less influence in whatever government is formed after the elections.

For Shas, the internal rift centers on former party chairman Aryeh Deri, who is now weighing a return to politics - either as part of Shas, which would entail an uneasy alliance with current chairman Eli Yishai, or in the framework of a new, rival party.

For United Torah Judaism - a joint list comprised of the Degel Hatorah and Agudath Israel parties - all is not sweetness and light between the various Hasidic sects that comprise the latter. But UTJ's biggest problem is with Degel Hatorah, which represents the "Lithuanian" (non-Hasidic ) Haredim: The Lithuanians' unchallenged spiritual leader, Rabbi Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, recently died, and the party is now riven between adherents of his two would-be successors, Rabbi Aharon Leib Shteinman and Rabbi Shmuel Auerbach.

כולם נגד כולם ב'עדה': הראב"ד נגד סאטמר ובריסק

bholהמלחמה הפנימית שפרצה בחוגי 'העדה החרדית' סביב מאבק הקברים -          ובראשם המאבק המתהל במתחם גולובנציץ בבית שמש - הולכת ומתרחבת, ובימים האחרונים נראה כי נוצר קרע של ממש בין החוגים המרכיבים את 'העדה החרדית'.

לטענת אנשי 'אתרא קדישא', קיימים במתחם גולובנציץ קברים, טענה אשר מהווה מבחינתם סיבה לעכב את הבנייה במקום, עד לבדיקה יסודית. אלא שיזמני הבניה והרוכשים, שקבלו על העיכוב, פנו אל ראשי בד"ץ 'העדה החרדית', והדיינים התבקשו להתערב ולמנוע מ'אתרא קדישא' את עיכוב הבניה. אלא שהגאב"ד עצר את הדיון, וההיתר לא הונפק.

אלא שבערב חג סוכות פורסם מכתב, עליו חתום ראב"ד 'העדה החרדית', הגר"מ שטרנבוך, הקובע באופן נחרץ כי ניתן לעלות עם דחפורים על השטח ולהתחיל בבנייה, ללא שום חשש לחילולי קברים. "ולמעשה אין לעכב את החפירות", נכתב. "ויש לחפור מיד ממש בטרקטור קטן בלי שיניים גדולות ולהעמיד משגיח מומחה מהבד"ץ לחפש ולעיין אם נמצא..." 

בתחילת המכתב פורש הגר"מ שטרנבוך בקצה את הסיבות ההלכתיות לדבריו ולהיתר הבניה, ובין היתר גם מזכיר כשיקול משמעותי את מצוקתן של 1000 משפחות הממתינות בכליון עיניים לביתם החדש, "ובפרט שהדבר נוגע לחיותן של אלף משפחות, ולחייב רבים מהם לחזור על הפתחים מחשש בעלמא שאינו מבוסס כלל".

NY sued for incompetence in false rape accusations

NYTimes   One of four men who had sex-crime charges against him in a case involving a young Orthodox Jewish woman dismissed last June has sued New York City and the Brooklyn district attorney’s office for malicious prosecution, defamation and false imprisonment.

The man, Darrell Dula, filed the lawsuit in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn on Oct. 2, more than a year after he was jailed on Rikers Island and held there for months without bail on the charges, which were dismissed amid troubling questions about the accuser’s credibility and whether prosecutors mishandled exculpatory evidence. [...]

The case began in June 2011 when Mr. Hynes, at a highly publicized news conference, announced the indictments of Mr. Dula and three co-defendants — Damien Crooks and two brothers, Jamali and Jawara Brockett — on charges of rape, sex trafficking and compelling prostitution over the course of a decade.

The four men were accused of using assaults and threats of violence to silence the woman, a member of the Chabad Lubavitch community in Crown Heights who was only 13 at the start of the events described in the indictment.

Jerry Sandusky sentenced to at least 30 years

CBS News   Jerry Sandusky was sentenced Tuesday to at least 30 years in prison -- effectively a life sentence -- in the child sexual abuse scandal that brought shame to Penn State and led to coach Joe Paterno's downfall.

Judge John Cleland sentenced the 68-year-old former assistant football coach to 30 years minimum to 60 years maximum in prison. Under Pennsylvania law, Sandusky cannot be released on parole before the minimum term is up.

A defiant Sandusky gave a long, rambling statement in which he denied the allegations and talked about his life in prison and the pain of being away from his family.[...]

Why banning anti-gay therapy is problematic

Time Magazine   On September 29, Jerry Brown signed into law a bill banning therapy that purportedly “cures” gays for minors in the state of California. Brown had previously Tweeted that these practices, known as conversion therapy, “have no basis in science of medicine and they will now be relegated to the dustbin of quackery.” Almost immediately after being signed into law, a Christian legal group called the Pacific Justice Institute sued the state, saying that the ban was a violation of free speech and private relationships between youth, families and their therapists. Is the law a helpful effort to protect minors or a nanny-state intrusion into a private and intimate issue?

Both, possibly. First, it should be clearly stated that the empirical research supporting the efficacy of this form of therapy is weak, at best.  A 2009 task force report    by the American Psychological Association concluded that efforts to therapeutically change sexual orientation do not work, and carry significant risk of harm.  Consenting homosexual behavior is no more harmful than consenting heterosexual behavior, but instilling or reinforcing in patients the view that their sexual orientation is wrong can do psychological damage. Outside of religious conservatives, few defenders of conversion therapy can be found.

Whether government banning of such procedures is the most appropriate response is worth debating, however. There are a number of therapies out there which have been empirically demonstrated to range from useless to outright harmful. Scott Lilienfeld, a professor of psychology at Emory University, discussed this in a 2007 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science. Among the therapies he looked at were questionable ones such as facilitated communication, “rebirthing” therapies, and “recovered memory” therapy. But they also included relatively popular approaches such as “Scare Straight” for kids who are at risk for delinquency, boot camps kids who are anti-social, and DARE anti-drug programs. If we are going to start down the road of banning therapies, should we not ban these all, if the research evidence continues to bear out Dr. Lilienfeld’s concerns?  Why do we ban gay conversion therapy but leave DARE programs intact?

Rav M' Feinstein - Women & men are equally holy

Igros Moshe (O.C. 4:49): ...It is necessary to know that  women are not inferior in their level of kedusha (holiness) to men. Concerning kedusha, women are equal to men regarding the aspect that the obligation of mitzvos is only because of holiness.. Also we see that all the verses regarding kedusha apply equally to women. Whether it is in regard to the beginning of the receiving of Torah when the Torah says, And you will be to Me a treasure and you will be for me a holy people. Or when G‑d said to speak to Beis Yaakov – which means the women and tell Bnei Yisroel – which means the men. Or when the Torah says, You shall be holy men to Me – in Mishpatim. Or in Shemini, You shall be holy or in Kedoshim, And they will be holy. Or in Re’eh, Because you are a holy people to me. In all these verses where kedusha of the Jewish people is mentioned, it also applies to women. This equivalence of halachic kedusha is why women say the same beracha – “who has commanded us with His mitzvos” - when they do mitzvos as men say. This is true also even when they do mitzvos that the Torah doesn’t obligate because of various leniencies that G‑d has for women not having to do certain mitzvos. Their exemption from certain mitzvos is certainly not the result of being inferior, G-d forbid! And concerning the obligations between husband and wife, the husband is obligated to honor his wife and the wife is obligated to honor her husband – without any difference. Furthermore there were many women who were prophets and they had exactly the same laws of prophets as the men. In addition there are many things that women are praised more than men in Torah verses and the words of our Sages. There is absolutely no degradation of their honor or anything else by the fact that they are exempt from studying Torah and time bound positive commandments. Thus there is no reason to complain at all. Consequently it is necessary for you to explain this each and every time. It is necessary to be determined and strong in these views which are like the laws of the Torah and to protest against those women who stubbornly insist on clinging to their foolish and distorted [feminist ideology]- in order that no change should be made to any aspect of holy Jewish practice

Simchas Torah Hakafos – Standing Up

Five Towns Jewish Times by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

As people grow older, often the infirmities of age can change what used to be simple activities into situations with some challenges.  Simchas Torah is, of course, a time of intense joy in which we celebrate both the completion and the continuity of the Torah.  In doing so, we generally remove all the Sifrei Torah from the Aron Kodesh and encircle the Bima with seven joyous Hakafos.  The Sifrei Torah are always on the move and in front of us, and this brings up some halachic questions

THE ESSENTIAL HALACHA

The Shulchan Aruch (YD 282:2) states that one who sees a Sefer Torah being moved is obligated to stand up in front of it.  All should stand up until the person moving the Torah reaches his place or if it is no longer within their sight.

This Halacha would seem to dictate that the entire period of Hakafos of Simchas Torah, one must remain standing.  In many places the Hakafos can last several hours.  There are places in which the Hakafos last for four or five hours and rare is the Shul that has Hakafos for less than an hour and a half.  Must one really stand the entire time? 

Rabbi Yair Bacharach, author of the Chavas Yair writes in his newly discovered commentary on Shulchan Aruch (Mekor Chaim 141:7) that, in fact, there is such an obligation to stand.  ONE 

LENIENCY

The Aruch HaShulchan (YD 282:5) expresses a somewhat more lenient view.  He writes that while the Hakafos are going on and the Torahs are encircling the Bima, there is certainly an obligation to stand.  However, in between the Hakafos, even though the Torahs are being held by individuals, one may sit down.  His reason is that this is uquivalent to the Torah having reached its place.   It is interesting to note that Rav Yoseph Teomim in his Pri Magadim (Mishbetzes HaZahav 141) writes that when a Chazan is holding the Torah while reciting Yizkor it is considered as if the Torah is resting in its place and there is no obligation to stand up.  So we do see some precedent for the Aruch HaShulchan’s opinion.

Slashing tires on Shabbos - required to pay?

5tjtimes  by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

 This past Chol HaMoed Shabbos a near tragedy was averted by a quick-thinking Orthodox Jewish man, when he noticed that a driver was stopped at a stop sign on Empire Avenue right before the corner of Reads Lane.  The problem was that the driver had fallen fast asleep with his foot on the brakes.  The person noticed the imminent danger and acted quickly.

The car was running, but the Jewish man was unable to awaken the driver and all four doors of the sedan were locked.  

If the driver were to inadvertently move his foot in his sleep, he could possibly run over innocent victims.  Plus, the area was a heavily walked site next to two very popular synagogues with numerous kids around as well.

After calling the authorities to deal with the driver, the Orthodox Jewish man took a kitchen knife and punctured the tires so that the car would be unable to move forward.  Later, firemen smashed the glass windows and placed the car in park.

There are two questions.  The first question is whether it is permitted to have punctured the driver’s tires on Shabbos or not.    The second question is whether the person doing the puncturing should have made sure to puncture the tires in such a manner that the tires can still be repaired.  When a tire is slashed on the sidewall it cannot be repaired.  If it is cut on the treading of the tire itself then the tire may be plugged up at a tire repair shop.  Is the tire-slashing hero responsible to pay?

The Clics Sukkah - halachic issues

 Five Towns Jewish Times  by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

According to their website, “Clics are colored plastic building blocks that clic together to form hundreds of different models, limited only by the imagination of the child.

They are “produced in bite-proof safe, polypropylene, they are durable and able to withstand prolonged use under all conditions.”

Many people saw the Sukkah made out of Clics highlighted in a popular Vosizneias artcle just before Sukkos.  The Sukkah was constructed by Yonasan Schwartz, owner of Toys to Discover in Borough Park, with the assistance of numerous young boys from throughout Boro Park. The Sukkah, it is reported used over 30,000 Clics and was six by eight feet in its dimension.  

The question is: Are there any halachos about the use of the Sukkah’s clics after Yom Tov is over?

The Sukkas Chaim cites the Zichron L’Moshe which relates a fascinating story about the Chasam Sofer.  The Chasam Sofer had a Yeshiva in Pressburg where students came to study with him from far and wide.  There was one bochur who, while taking down the Sukkah after the Yom Tov, callously stepped upon the branches that were used for the Schach.  The Chasam Sofer felt that the young man’s insensitivity to something that was just used for the Mitzvah of Sukkah was not an insignificant issue.  The Chasam Sofer refused to take the young man as a student in his Yeshiva.

The issue, of course, is based on the Gemorah in Megillah 26b that states that items used for a Mitzvah (Tashmishei Mitzvah) may be thrown out.  Yet we do find (Shabbos 22a) that a use that is demeaning or undignified is forbidden.   The term used by the Poskim is Tashmish shel Bizayon.

In regard to our Clics Sukkah we, therefore, have three questions:  

1] What exactly defines a Sukkah?  Is it the Schach and the four walls?  Or is it just whatever is under the Schach (provided, of course, that what is under meets the size and stability requirements)? [...]

Rape - like force feeding honey on Yom Kippur

Abarbanel (Bereishis 33:18-35): The Torah says, “Dina, the daughter of Leah who was born to Yaakov” – went out. It doesn’t tell this to criticize her that she went out – contrary to what Rashi claims. That is because Leah was well known for her modesty and it because of this modesty that Yaakov did not recognize her when he first had sexual relations with her (Bereishis 29:23:25). And this that Leah went to Yaakov and told him that he would be spending the night with her (Bereishis 30:16) – means only that she went to the door of her house and she said it purely for the sake of Heaven [and not because of lust]. In fact this verse comes to praise Dina and it was saying this to declare that she typically didn’t go out of the house since she was the daughter of Leah and she had been taught to stay in the house. In contrast Rachel was a shepherdess while Leah typically did not leave the house. This attribute of remaining in the house also came to her from her father who was known as one “who dwelled in the tents.” So if her father was modest then surely this would be true of the daughter. All this teaches that she did not go out of the house for bad intentions – G‑d forbid! – but merely “to see the daughters of the land.” The Torah doesn’t say it was to see the men of the city or even the children of the city – but the daughters of the city. In other words she wanted to see the girls of the city and their clothes and jewelry. This was because there was no other girl besides her in the family. So she wanted to learn from the local girls as is the manner of young unmarried women. This resolves the fourth question we raised. Furthermore there is no doubt that Dina did not go out alone but was accompanied by a man or woman - even though this is not mentioned in the Torah’s account – since it is self-evident. (This is similar to the Torah’s description of Moshe going to meet his father-in-law where it is known from other sources (Mechilta Shemos 18) that he didn’t go alone.). However it just says, “That Shechem the son of Chamor the ruler of this land saw her.” This verse is to be understood to mean that since he was the son of the ruler he took Dina by force and was not concerned with the one who accompanied her and he wasn’t afraid of Yaakov and his sons. The Torah simple states, “Shechem took Dina and lay with her and tormented her.” [...] Perhaps the reason the Torah says that he “tormented her” is because sexual intercourse is inherently pleasurable even if it starts out as rape it will nevertheless typically result in physical pleasure. For example it is mentioned in the gemora that a woman came to Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi and told him that she had been raped. Since he held that a woman who is raped must resist from beginning to end – he asked her whether she had experienced any physical pleasure during the rape. Because in his view if there was any moment that she didn’t resist then she would be prohibited to her husband. She replied by asking him whether a person fasting on Yom Kippur who has honey forced into his mouth -  would he find the experience pleasurable even though it was done against his will? This is proof that a natural physical pleasure is not eliminated even if it is brought about by force. Thus this verse is alluding to the praise of Dina. Because she was so upset by the rape that she experienced no physical pleasure at all. All of this teaches us that Dina was absolutely free of all sin. Because if she had experienced pleasure there is no question that her brothers would have killed her when they massacred the community of Shechem and they would have viewed it as a case of an adulterous couple. However it was clear to them that it was absolutely a case of rape – from beginning to end -  and thus they did nothing to Dinah.

[The recent critical edition of the Abarbanel notes there is apparently no known source that Dina was engaged or married- in addition the Abarbanel's claim that she might have been killed if she had been forced to have pleasure is a view clearly against the halacha]
There seems to be a major dispute in the commentaries as to the degree of Dinah's complicity as well as whether she rejected Shechem totally - as the Abarbanel states - or wanted him as the Torah Temima notes.
תורה תמימה (בראשית לד:ב הערה ג): פירש"י שלא בא אליה בעונתה בשעה שנתאוית לו או שבא עליה שלא כדרכה, עכ"ל, ומה שלא פרשו חז"ל בפשיטות ויענה שאנסה שלא לרצונה, שעל זה יונח לשון ענוי כמו תחת אשר ענה את אשת רעהו (פ' תצא), י"ל ע"פ המבואר במ"ר בפרשה כאן בפסוק ויקחו את דינה ויצאו (פ' כ"ו) גוררין בה ויוצאין, והיינו שלא יצאה ברצון מבית שכם, א"כ מבואר שלא נאנסה על כרחה:

Bereishis Rabba(80:11):[[ 11. AND TOOK DINAH OUT OF SHECHEM'S HOUSE, AND WENT FORTH. R. Judah said: They dragged her out and departed.6 R. Hunia observed: When a woman is intimate with an uncircumcised person, she finds it hard to tear herself away. R. Huna [also] said7: She pleaded, ’And I, whither shall I carry my shame?’  (II Sam. XIII, 13), until Simeon swore that he would marry her. Hence it is written, And the sons of Simeon... and Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman  (Gen. XLVI, 10): (this means, the son of Dinah who was intimate with a Canaanite).l R. Judah said: It means that she acted in the manner of the Canaanites.2 R. Nehemiah said: It means that she was intimate with a Hivite [Shechem] who is included in the Canaanites. The Rabbis said: [She was so called because] Simeon took and buried her in the land of Canaan

Minyan, group therapy, and the validation of being seen

Times of Israel by Rabbi Mendel Horowitz

Of those devout it is not unusual for men to gather, fedoras askew, seeking inspiration in the company of strangers. Thrice daily, observant men assemble for prayers and are routinely affected by the shared experience. The siddur is not lacking in appeals for personal growth; the process of supplication can be humbling, heartening, hardy. Still, as much as we talk to and about God, observant men are uncannily reserved about themselves. In a scheme that emphasizes ritual, it is easy to hide behind behavior.

A minyan is a curious thing. Ostensibly a forum for individual worship, much liturgical prose is composed in the plural, likening independent wants with communal needs. Restore us in repentance. Save us and we will be saved. Observant men pray not only with each other but for each other, regularly. Ideally, when joined in prayer dissimilar men concede similarities, the unaffiliated align. Stubbornly, differences tend to divide. There is a certain safety in praying for — and being prayed for by — others. In divine ears we each sound disharmonious. The “one for all, all for one” ideal increases our odds of being heard while protecting us from the humiliation of disclosure.

Compulsory prayers are by design both a declaration of praise and an expression of lacking. The Hebrew term for prayer – t’filah — connotes intervention, a petition for mystic involvement in the minutia of existence. Appealing for such intervention involves appreciating celestial supremacy and confessing human deficiency. Indeed, the Hebrew term for gratitude — hoda’ah — is of the same root as that of admission. While minyans can seem boisterous, the prayers they comprise can function as means for silent confessions and resolutions

Rubashkin appeal rejected by Supreme Court

Forward  The Supreme Court rejected an appeal Monday by Sholom Rubashkin, the former chief executive of a kosher meat packing plant in Iowa who was sentenced to 27 years in prison on charges of financial fraud.

Without comment, the high court refused to consider whether Sholom Rubashkin’s sentence was excessive for a first-time, nonviolent offender and whether he was entitled to a new trial based on evidence of alleged judicial misconduct in the case.

The rejection could mark the last step in a four-year legal saga that began in May 2008 when federal authorities raided the Agriprocessors kosher meatpacking plant in Postville, Iowa.