Rabbi Akiva: Talmid Chachom should not be a politician

With the Israeli elections coming up soon, Avraham has pointed out an interesting gemora. The following sources clearly indicate that a talmid chachom should not be the political leader - whether it is mayor or president - but rather should be an advisor or clarifier of the appropriate Torah values or approach. This was also the arrangment in Europe where typically the community was run by the tovei haIr who were generally the respected or influential activists and the rav was consulted regarding Torah issues and principles but was not involved in the day to day issues.

Pesachim (112a) : Our Rabbis taught: Seven things did R. Akiba charge his son R. Joshua: My son, do not sit and study at the highest point of the town; do not dwell in a town whose leaders are scholars... Rashi explains because a talmid chachom is preoccupied with his studies and therefore does not attend to practical matters.

Igros Moshe (Volume 8 Introduction page 27): Active involvement of gedolei Torah in politics - also in Israel - aroused [Rav Moshe Feinstein’s] opposition. He used to say that greatness in Torah is not combined with expertise in politics.

Berachos (3b) R. Aha b. Bizana in the name of R. Simeon the Pious: A harp was hanging above David's bed. As soon as midnight arrived, a North wind came and blew upon it and it played of itself. He arose immediately and studied the Torah till the break of dawn. After the break of dawn the wise men of Israel came in to see him and said to him: Our lord, the King, Israel your people require sustenance! He said to them: Let them go out and make a living one from the other.19 They said to him: A handful cannot satisfy a lion, nor can a pit be filled up with its own clods.20 He said to them: Then go out in troops and attack [the enemy for plunder]. They at once took counsel with Ahithofel and consulted the Sanhedrin and questioned the Urim and Tummim.21

Yad Ephraim (14:7):  Regarding the position of mayor

ז. משרת ראש העיר

חכמי ישראל בנסיונם הרב בניהול תפקידים צבוריים, לימדו אותנו לא לבחור לתפקיד צבורי אחראי ובמיוחד לראש העיר (ש"כל מילי דמתא עליהו רמיא") אדם, שהוא בעל מקצוע בשטח אחר, כגון: תלמיד - חכם, מלומד, רופא וכו', כיון שהאישים הללו מטבעם קשורים הם, אם להספר, ואם למקצועו הרפואי וכו'. ממילא יסבלו עניני העיר והציבור, על כן אמרו: אל תדור בעיר שראשיה ת"ח (פסחים קי"ב א') וכן שם (קי"ג א'): אל תדור בעיר דריש מתא אסיא (רופא). כי קשה להאמין שאנשים מלומדים הללו, יפסיקו מהיום עבודותיהם במקצועות העבר וירכזו מעתה כל כוחותיהם וכשרונותיהם רק בניהול עניני העיר והצבור.

לפי פי' התוס' (ב"ב ק"י א' ד"ה ולא), היא גם כעין אזהרה לת"ח שלא לקבל עליו תפקיד צבורי אחראי כמשרת ראש העיר וכדומה, כיון שעל ידי זה יתבטל מתורתו. מכאן, שחכמינו הקדמונים לא ראו "ברכות בהרבה מלאכות" ולא חבבו חצי מלאכה ורבוי תפקידים. מאידך - אם קרה ותלמיד חכם קבל עליו תפקיד צבורי, אין לו בתקופה זו, לעסוק באופן קבוע, אף לא בתורה, אלא להתמסר כולו לתפקיד הצבורי שהוטל עליו. כך מספרים חז"ל: אמר ריב"ל ששים הלכות למדני ר"י בן פדייה בחרישת הקבר וכולם נשתכחו ממני בשעה שהייתי עוסק בצרכי צבור (מ"ר וארא ו' ז') ובתנחומא שם: מכאן, שהעוסק בצ"צ משכח תלמודו.

כנראה, משום מתן פיצוי ועדוד לעוסקים בצ"צ, על שעליהם להזניח את תורתם אמרו בירושלמי (ברכות פ"ה ה"א): העוסק בצ"צ כעוסק בתורה (מובא גם בתוס' ל"א א'). יוצא דעת חכמינו שאם מישהו משמש בתפקיד ראש העיר, נשיא המועצה, ראש הקהילה וכדומה שבידו הופקדו עניני העיר והצבור, אין עליו לעסוק בשום דבר אחר, זולת שקידה על מלוי תפקידו לטובת עניני העיר והאוכלוסיה.

יתכן שמשום זה, מוצאים אנו שבחלקם הגדול שמשו כפרנסים ומנהיגי צבור לאו דוקא תלמידי חכמים. לדוגמא בקדושין (ע"ו ב'): הילכך, רב ביבי דגברא רבה הוא ליעיין במילי דשמיא (עניני צדקה בבית הכנסת) ומר (דלא הצטיין כגברא רבה בתורה, ראה שם) ליעיין במילי דמתא (בצרכי צבור, רש"י) ובפיהמ"ש להרמב"ם (בכורות פ"ד) דבבחירת ראש הגולה "אין אנו חוששים לתורתו", וראה תשו' הרא"ם לרבנו אליהו מזרחי (סי' נ"ג) דטובי העיר שעוסקים בצ"צ אין הם חכמי העיר, וראה שם אריכות גדולה בכל עניני קהילה וצבור וכן ברדב"ז (הל' מתנות עניים פ"י ה"ח) שנוהגים למנות גבאים אף על פי שאינם חכמים. קהילות ישראל בבחירתם של פרנסים, ראשי ועסקני צבור, זכרו כנראה בכלל הנ"ל של חז"ל "אל תדור בעיר שראשיה תלמידי חכמים".

R Amnon Yitzchok stands against the whole world

 Kikar Shabbat

הרב שלום כהן: "הוא מאבד את עולמו", הרב עובדיה: "מצווה הבאה בעבירה"

לאחר ספקולציות והערכות שונות אמש זה קרה: הגאון הרב שלום כהן והרב עובדיה יוסף יצאו בקריאה נגד מפלגתו של הרב אמנון יצחק 'כח להשפיע' • הרב שלום כהן: "מהרסייך ומחרבייך ממך יצאו, אני אמרתי לרב בעדני שהוא מאבד את עולמו, צריך להחזיר בתשובה את מי שמחזיר בתשובה" • הגר"ע יוסף: מצווה הבאה בעבירה הוא רוצה לעשות, למה, לא חבל עליו" (חרדים

Kikar Shabbat

הרב אמנון יצחק על הרב פנגר: ליצן, משת"פ של הטמבלויזיה

אחרי שהרב יצחק פנגר התבטא בראיון לערוץ 2 כי הרב אמנון יצחק "מפחיד אותו", באה התגובה החריפה: ארגון "שופר" מפרסם קטע וידאו ובו מתקפה חריפה על הרב פנגר מפיו של הרב יצחק: "רב ליצן עם כיפה וזקן. עד היום לא היה בעולם מי ששימח אותם עד שהגיע הרב ליצן ומשמח את הבריות" (חדשות)

 

Kikar Shabbat

הגראי"ל שטיינמן על הרב יצחק: אין לי שייכות איתו

ביום חמישי הגיע חבר מועצת החכמים, הגאון הרב שלום כהן, אל ביתו של מרן הגראי"ל שטיינמן ושוחח איתו על מפלגת "כח להשפיע" של הרב אמנון יצחק. הבוקר, נחשפת ההקלטה מהפגישה הדרמטית: "לא דיברתי אף פעם על זה", אמר ראש הישיבה על כח להשפיע (ארץ

Kikar Shabbat

מכתב תמיכה בר' אמנון יצחק: "יצאו נגדו בחרב"

לאחר מכתבים רבים נגד הרב אמנון יצחק, 'כח להשפיע' זוכה לרגעי נחת: הרב אברהם שלמה ליבוביץ מפרסם מכתב תמיכה מיוחד ברב אמנון יצחק, ומבקר את החלטת ש"ס לצאת נגדו ללא לנסות לשמוע את טענותיו. "יצאו נגדך בחרב ובחנית". בכיר בש"ס: הגר"ע הורה לא לדבר אתו עד שיסגור את המפלגה (חרדים)

 

 

Forgiving a Daughter's Killer:Restorative Justice

NYTimes   About an hour earlier, at his parents’ house, McBride shot Ann Margaret Grosmaire, his girlfriend of three years. Ann was a tall 19-year-old with long blond hair and, like McBride, a student at Tallahassee Community College. The couple had been fighting for 38 hours in person, by text message and over the phone. They fought about the mundane things that many couples might fight about, but instead of resolving their differences or shaking them off, they kept it up for two nights and two mornings, culminating in the moment that McBride shot Grosmaire, who was on her knees, in the face. Her last words were, “No, don’t!” [...]

Most modern justice systems focus on a crime, a lawbreaker and a punishment. But a concept called “restorative justice” considers harm done and strives for agreement from all concerned — the victims, the offender and the community — on making amends. And it allows victims, who often feel shut out of the prosecutorial process, a way to be heard and participate. In this country, restorative justice takes a number of forms, but perhaps the most prominent is restorative-justice diversion. There are not many of these programs — a few exist on the margins of the justice system in communities like Baltimore, Minneapolis and Oakland, Calif. — but, according to a University of Pennsylvania study in 2007, they have been effective at reducing recidivism. Typically, a facilitator meets separately with the accused and the victim, and if both are willing to meet face to face without animosity and the offender is deemed willing and able to complete restitution, then the case shifts out of the adversarial legal system and into a parallel restorative-justice process. All parties — the offender, victim, facilitator and law enforcement — come together in a forum sometimes called a restorative-community conference. Each person speaks, one at a time and without interruption, about the crime and its effects, and the participants come to a consensus about how to repair the harm done.[....]

Baliga had been in therapy in New York, but while in India she had what she calls “a total breakdown.” She remembers thinking, Oh, my God, I’ve got to fix myself before I start law school. She decided to take a train to Dharamsala, the Himalayan city that is home to a large Tibetan exile community. There she heard Tibetans recount “horrific stories of losing their loved ones as they were trying to escape the invading Chinese Army,” she told me. “Women getting raped, children made to kill their parents — unbelievably awful stuff. And I would ask them, ‘How are you even standing, let alone smiling?’ And everybody would say, ‘Forgiveness.’ And they’re like, ‘What are you so angry about?’ And I told them, and they’d say, ‘That’s actually pretty crazy.’ ” The family that operated the guesthouse where Baliga was staying told her that people often wrote to the Dalai Lama for advice and suggested she try it. Baliga wrote something like: “Anger is killing me, but it motivates my work. How do you work on behalf of oppressed and abused people without anger as the motivating force?”  [...]

The Grosmaires said they didn’t forgive Conor for his sake but for their own. “Everything I feel, I can feel because we forgave Conor,” Kate said. “Because we could forgive, people can say her name. People can think about my daughter, and they don’t have to think, Oh, the murdered girl. I think that when people can’t forgive, they’re stuck. All they can feel is the emotion surrounding that moment. I can be sad, but I don’t have to stay stuck in that moment where this awful thing happened. Because if I do, I may never come out of it. Forgiveness for me was self-preservation.”

Still, their forgiveness affected Conor, too, and not only in the obvious way of reducing his sentence. “With the Grosmaires’ forgiveness,” he told me, “I could accept the responsibility and not be condemned.” Forgiveness doesn’t make him any less guilty, and it doesn’t absolve him of what he did, but in refusing to become Conor’s enemy, the Grosmaires deprived him of a certain kind of refuge — of feeling abandoned and hated — and placed the reckoning for the crime squarely in his hands. I spoke to Conor for six hours over three days, in a prison administrator’s office at the Liberty Correctional Institution near Tallahassee. At one point he sat with his hands and fingers open in front of him, as if he were holding something. Eyes cast downward, he said, “There are moments when you realize: I am in prison. I am in prison because I killed someone. I am in prison because I killed the girl I loved.” [...]

No Religious Exemption When It Comes to Abuse

NYTimes   Just as we think we know what an abuser looks like, we think we know what an abusive religious community looks like. We may think it is highly insular — like the Satmar Hasidic community in the Williamsburg neighborhood of Brooklyn, a prominent member of which was convicted last month of sexually abusing a young girl sent to him for help. Or it is hierarchical and bureaucratic: if the Roman Catholic Church did not have so many bishops and archbishops who refused to dismiss or defrock molesters in their ranks, would so many pedophile priests have been able to carry on for so long? 

But we don’t know a thing. Consider Yeshiva University.

As Paul Berger reported last month in the Jewish newspaper The Forward, two rabbis at the Modern Orthodox high school run by the university were accused of sexually abusing students in the 1970s and ’80s. Leaders, Mr. Berger wrote, responded by “quietly allowing them to leave and find jobs elsewhere.” The university president at the time, Norman Lamm — until last month a titan of contemporary Judaism — told Mr. Berger that he had let the staff members “go quietly.”

“It was not our intention or position to destroy a person without further inquiry,” Dr. Lamm said.  [...]

Eli Weinstein pleads guilty to $200 million scam

WOBM   Four days before the start of his federal trial, Eliyahu Weinstein of Lakewood has admitted running a $200,000,000 real-estate investment scam and laundering the money. [...]

His plea bargain leaves him at risk for up to 25 years in prison at his scheduled April 2 sentencing. He’ll also be required to serve three years supervised release, submit an accounting of all money accrued in the scam, pay restitution to victims, and give up seized property valued at $2,000,000. [...]

Prosecutors contend that Weinstein initially targeted members of the Orthodox Jewish community to which he belonged, using his knowledge of customs and traditions to enhance his credibility in what legal experts call affinity fraud.

According to investigators, Weinstein took advantage of the Orthodox practice of trust-based transactions, convincing investors that they money was being rolled over into new ventures. He spread beyond the Orthodox circle, authorities contend, in April 2010 when mounting losses sank his reputation.

הגר"ע יוסף על הרב אמנון יצחק: "הקדיח תבשילו"

Kikar HaShabbatמרן פוסק הדור הרב עובדיה יוסף בהתייחסות ראשנה - חריפה בעוצמתה - על הרב אמנון יצחק     : "הקדיח תבשילו".

זו הפעם הראשנה בה מתייחס הרב עובדיה יוסף  לרב אמנון יצחק, מאז  רץ  האחרון  באמצעות מפלגתו 'כח להשפיע' לפוליטיקה. ריצה שבמהלכה תקף בחריפות רבה את בני משפחתו ומקורביו של הרב עובדיה יוסף.

במכתב ששלח הרב יגאל כהן מבני ברק למרן הגר"ע יוסף, השיב הרב בנחרצות. אנו מגישים את המכתב והתשובה במלואו:

שאלה: "לכבוד מורינו ורבינו פאר הדור מרן מלכא שליט"א, שלום וברכה וכל טוב סלה. ב"ה זכינו לפני כשנה לפתוח בית מדרש ובית כנסת ע"ש ספרו הגדול של מרן "יביע אומר", כשמטרתנו לחזק הקהילה הספרדית בבני ברק, ולהפיץ את תורתו של מרן. וב"ה יש כולל  אברכים המונה כשלושים אברכים, ושיעורי תורה לבעלי בתים ולנשים במשך כל שעות היממה.

"ובמקביל, לפני כשנה, התחיל למסור אצלנו הרב אמנון יצחק שליט"א, שיעור המתחיל בשעה  ארבע וחצי בבוקר עד לתפילת הנץ, בנושא חובת הלבבות שער הביטחון. והנה לאחרונה פונים אלי אנשים מאנשי בית הכנסת והקהילה תלמידי מרן, ושואלים האם ראוי שימשיך למסור שיעורים במקום הקרוי על שם מרן שליט"א. ואני חושש על נפשי להפסיק שיעור תורה המחזק אנשים רבים, ולכן באתי בשאלה למרן שיכריע  בנושא גורלי זה, ויורה לנו הדרך אשר נלך בה. בתודה ובברכת ימי על ימי מלך תוסיף

בהכנעה תלמידו אוהבו בלב ונפש - יגאל כהן".

תשובת מרן הגר"ע יוסף: "בזמן האחרון הנ"ל הקדיח תבשילו, ומצווה  להחליפו באדם ירא שמים, שאם דומה הרב למלאך ה' צבאות, יבקשו תורה מפיהו- עובדיה יוסף".

הרב אמנון יצחק מסר בתגובה ל'כיכר השבת': "על פי דעת תורה של אחד מגדולי הספרדים שקבלתי הרי תגובתי:
כל מי שיוצא נגדי בדבור או בכתב מבלי לברר את דברי בבית דין עובר על איסור דאורייתא של "שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק" חשן משפט סימן יז. וכל המדבר כנגדי סרה או לשון הרע ומאמין לשמועות מבלי לבררן עימי אין לו מחילה עולמית".

 

R' Amnon Yitzchok self-destructs over elections

Kikar haShabbat for a full discussion

The above notice was printed in the Hebrew Mishpacha

BHOL for additional information

Rav Aviner's Modesty Guidelines cause Controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheap Online-Ordained Rabbis Grab Pulpits

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

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

Conservative and Reform rabbis see the rise of these nontraditional rabbis as a dire threat. “It’s a plague down here,” said Rabbi Gerry Weiss, the JTS graduate who lost his job at Beth Ami to Kavon.

Others argue, however, that the shift answers an economic need, and one that isn’t going away. [...]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rav  Sternbuch (5:315): Abrogating the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom? I was seized by fear and trembling when I heard that one rabbi in America decided to abrogate the Cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom for the case where the couple had gone at least 18 months without shalom bayis (domestic tranquility). In such a case he permits the husband to marry another woman after he has deposited a Get and Kesuba and a guarantee of support for his first wife. I was upset because his words are against the poskim who agreed to abrogate the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom only in the case where the wife is crazy or when the wife does not want to accept a Get when it is required by halacha. It is obvious that if you abrogate also in the case where the marriage lacks shalom bayis for 18 month then that effectively does away with the Cherem entirely. That is because someone who wants to end his marriage will simply make sure that he has no shalom bayis for 18 months and then he will be able to marry someone else. The seriousness of the Cherem is stated explicitly in the poskim and that is why it requires the agreement of 100 rabbis to abrogate it – even in those cases where it is permitted to abrogate it.
 

However I heard from the Brisker Rav that when there is a breach in the observance of Torah law that one needs to defend it didactically and to state forcefully that violating this particular halacha is absolutely forbidden and serious and not to explain any conditions. Because by presenting different aspects of the law it is likely that they will rationalize their violation and this will serve to weaken the prohibition in their eyes. I want to add that if we need to bring justification for the Torah law - that serves only to justify their view rather than to strengthen the halacha. Therefore we need to announce that this particular halacha is a very severe prohibition and the words of the Brisker Rav should serve to state this categorically and not to explain and qualify our words. Therefore it is necessary to announce that one who proclaims such a leniency is debasing the cherem of Rabbeinu Gershom.

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

Why was Weberman respected by all Satmar factions?

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

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

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

With some info I have, it becomes clear that Satmar knows that weberman is guilty.How reckless is it when they knew that weberman is 'oiver' on isur 'yichud' and they continued to send girls to him, where they just stupid? or simply reckless?

If Satmar do not support him, would mean that hundreds of girls were abused with their recklessness.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Uva l'tziyon goel

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

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

Rav Lazerson Digital Water Meters Shabbos

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

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

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

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

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

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