Halachic justification for Kolko's defenders

 I have been getting feedback regarding the views of the Lakewood rabbonim who defend Kolko. The picture is getting clearer and better balanced. Unfortunately it is also clear that there are rabbonim - including major poskim who have approved the course of action of Rav "S" but are intimidated against publicly acknowledging this. It is disgusting that they feel threatened  and will not admit what they view is the proper halacha in this case. Rav "S" clearly has major poskim to rely on.  Hopefully this public presentation of views will lead to improvements in dealing with sexual abuse and less fear in presenting differening views.

My understanding of the the view of the Lakewood rabbonim is basically this:

Kolko is a nebach but he is not a pedophile (i.e., he doesn't have a sexual desire for children) and he definitely is not a rodef. He is a lonely guy who befriended a kid (11 years old) who had no friends. They alleged that this kid seduced him into doing things he didn't want to do and would never had done without being seduced. Therefore he can not be viewed as dangerous to others and is "innocent" of being a pedophile. He clearly does not deserve jail time since he didn't initiate any wrong behavior - but was seduced. This apparently is also the view of Rabbi Belsky. Since they don't view Kolko as a rodef there was no heter to go to the police and thus the father is a moser. Consequently the rabbonim didn't do anything wrong by calling the father a moser and driving him out of Lakewood - and do not need to apologize. Rather Rabbis "S" is the aggressor for calling the police and causing Kolko to be given a severe jail sentence - which helps no one and is totally unjustified. Anyone who doesn't understand these elementary facts doesn't belong in Lakewood.

Update: This explanation not only is nonsense but it is immoral. They are shamelessly putting the blame on the victim. At least they acknowledge that Kolko is guilty of what he was charged with. The issue shifts simply to whether the father had the right to call the police. [see below] Aside from the fact there is no evidence that Kolko was "seduced" - it is a common excuse given by pedophiles

However their allegations still don't make the father a moser for calling the police. A problem with their view is that an adult male who was seduced by a male child is still chayiv misa. If the adult has been seduced numerous times by this or other children and yet  insists on remaining in contact with these and other children - and "allows" himself to be seduced - isn't this the classic rodef [Sanhedrin 73a) that one needs to save him from himself to stop him from sinning? He obviously can not control himself. So even if you want to say he is not a rodef to harm the child [a problematic assertion] because he allegedly is not initiating the sexual contact and the child allegedly asked for it - why isn't he a rodef for sin and thus needs to be stopped? In Kolko's case it has been alleged that he has had sexual contact with more than one child - and yet he refused to quit teaching  and being a camp counselor. Lakewood rabbonim would have had a stronger case if they had required Kolko to quit teaching and spend his day packing candy in Brooklyn where he would have minimal contact with children. To base a case on the ridiculous assertion that an 11 year old made him do it is embarrassing! It is fairly common for a pedophile to complain that he had been seduced by the child.

See this article in the National Catholoci Reporter where a priest with a PhD in psychology claims the children seduced the priests  You might want to do a google search at the outrage that claim caused.
========================

I think the key to understanding the differing views in the Kolko case is a passage in Rambam Chovel u'Mazik (8:11). In a section dealing with moser he states, "And thus one who distresses the public can be turned over to the police but not one who distresses the individual."

According to the simple reading - the Rambam is talking about verbal distress - not financial or physical distress and certainly not threatening life activity. Thus calling the police is permitted to stop someone from verbally abusing 3 or more people. This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer  as well as the Pnei Yehoshua and the Minchas Yitzchok. They view the basis for the Rambam as Gittin (7a). Thus they understand that if the distress is in fact financial or physical (e.g., beating) - then they claim the Rambam would permit calling the police even for an individual. There are other sources in the Achronim that permit going to the police if someone is physically assaulting another person - even though it is not life threatening. Obviously sexual abuse of a child - even not involving penetration - would justify calling the police

However others view this Rambam as talking about someone like the counterfeiter who is endangering the community or a missionary. The Tzitz Eliezar applies it to a teacher who is abusing young girls. Since there is no Torah prohibition against this he applies this Rambam to justify calling the police. However if the teacher only abuses a single young girl - then he holds that the Rambam doesn't provide a heter. Rav Eliashiv disagrees with the Tzitz Eliezer because he claims abuse destroys the victim and thus it doesn't matter whether it is boy or girl and how many. It is pikuach nefesh and the abuser is a rodef. However it is argued by the Lakewood rabbis that if the adult does not take the initiative then he would not be viewed as a rodef and there is no heter to call the police.

Thus we have three levels - 1) one can only go to the police if it involves either life threatening actions or to save the abuser from doing a sin that he is chayiv misa for (e.g., mishkva zachor) and there is no other way of stopping the act. The concern is only when the adult is clearly the aggressor rather than mutual consent - otherwise the adult is not considered a rodef. This is apparently the view of Rav Scheinberg and Rav Menashe Klein (Sanhedrin 73a). 

2) It is permitted to go if the child's psychological health is threatened by the abuser and this would increase the likelihood of suicide or severe psychological trauma. This is apparently the view of Rav Eliashiv and other contemporary gedolim. Beis din is not viewed as capable of protecting against this type of aggression. Beis din is not needed but a rav should be consulted for objectivity and to prevent the world being hefker. It is not clear what their attitude would be if the child initiated the sexual activity. I think that the majority would hold that the adult is still responsible for the resulting activity - not the child. For example the Rambam holds that a child is responsible for sexual activity and thus a seduced child is guilty while the majority view is that a child is not considered liable and all sexual activity of a child with an adult is considered rape.

3) It is permitted to call the police as protection  -  even against serious verbal harassment - if there are at least 3 victims and an individual can call the police for financial or physical harm. Moser is understood as being only if it is a willful act to hurt another. But if you call the police solely to protect yourself or others - it is not considered moser. No beis din is need since it is simply an act of self preservation. A rav should be consulted - but there is fact is no aveira if he isn't. This is the Chasam Sofer (based on Gittin 7a) and others. Clearly a father or anyone else can call the police to protect a child from any sexual activity.

How Lakewood prevents abuse from being reported

Jewish Week 12/06/11. “Most victims of abuse and parents in Lakewood are afraid to speak up because [they fear being threatened by rabbis],” Debbie Rudin, a victim of childhood sexual abuse who now lives in Lakewood, told The Jewish Week.

“There are many Jewish communities that are controlled by the rabbonim [rabbis] of their towns that set certain standards, whether in regards to businesses, giving kosher supervision or allowing schools to open,” said Harold (Hershel) Hershkowitz, a Lakewood businessman who ran (and lost) for the Lakewood Township Committee on an anti-cronyism platform against the BMG-backed candidate. “But all of these are controlled in an open manner well understood by all that live there,” he said. “Lakewood, on the other hand, has a cabal that controls most Jewish publications, websites and of course the political arena, in order to exert full influence whenever it is necessary in order to keep their position of influence.”[...]

Indeed, the court testimony described above affords a rare public glimpse into what New Jersey Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson characterized as Lakewood’s “parallel justice system.”

The testimony itself comes from the only sexual abuse case in memory from the Lakewood haredi community to be prosecuted — something that came about because a family flouted, at great personal cost, communal norms and pressed charges against an alleged child molester, Yosef Kolko, in 2009.[...]

In addition to information directly relevant to the Kolko case, testimony from the hearings indicates that there have been other abuse allegations apparently deemed credible by rabbis, but that nonetheless went unreported to the police.

In testimony in New Jersey Superior Court given in May of this year, Lakewood rabbi and activist Micky Rottenberg alludes to such a case, which The Jewish Week has learned involved allegations against the husband of a woman who ran a local children’s playgroup. The beit din found the allegations to be credible and publicized them, effectively shutting down the playgroup. However, the authorities were never notified and the accused remains in the community today.

In his testimony, Rabbi Rottenberg also sheds light on the beit din’s inner workings.

According to him, “[The Secretary] of the beis din [would contact] the victims … [and the] alleged perpetrator, discuss with them … beg them to do certain things. And if they don’t do it, [the secretary would say] ‘I’m going to report [to the beit din] that you don’t listen to us, and then we are going to … Take away your job. Send away your kids from schools.’ Whatever measures they would feel they have power to be able for the person to submit and accept the verdict of the beis din.”

Rabbi Rottenberg also testified that he felt the beit din favored the accusers and was in fact involved in disbanding it at the behest of Rabbi Malkiel Kotler for this reason. Rabbi Kotler, through his brother, denied making any such request. [...]

Tzedaka During Davening by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt   They come from beyond the borough and enter into local shuls to collect Tzedakah.  Are there halachic guidelines and protocols as to when they can collect during Davening and when they cannot?  Is it permitted during Psukei D’Zimra or chazaras HaShatz?  Is it forbidden or permitted to give during these times?  The issue is the matter of much shul conversation debate.  So, at the very least, an article on the topic could lessen the amount of talking in shul.

We are working, of course, with the assumption that if one sees a real Ani, one is obligated to give him money.  This is the clear implication and understanding of the words of the author of the Shulchan Aruch (247:1).  It is also how most of the Achronim understand the Mechaber too.

Tzedakah is a full-fledged obligation to be supporting the poor – it is not optional.  One does not have to give an entire dollar, nor, according to many Poskim must one give to people that could theoretically be working.  One could, however, prepare quarters to give.  It should also be noted that if one does not have funds to give, this is not considered an Ones – it is a full-fledged exemption.

One issue, of course, that comes to mind is the idea of Osaik baMitzvah patur min haMitzvah – one who is involved in a Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah.  The RaN (Sukkah 25a) rules that this principle is applicable even if it is possible to fulfill both Mitzvos with the one caveat that if it must affect the quality of the first Mitzvah being performed.  Otherwise, one should do both Mitzvos.

So are we truly capable of multi-tasking our giving tzedaka along with the davening that we were originally involved in?  The short answer would seem to be “no, we cannot effectively multi-task without compromising the first Mitzvah.”  All this is assuming that we are really concentrating on the Tefillah.  If we are not anyway, then it seems that the RaN’s caveat is irrelevant.   The consequences of this rationale are that if someone isn’t paying attention to the davening – then he could be approached and he would not be exempt.  If someone is paying attention then he is exempt. [...]

Grooming students for abuse at Horace Mann

New Yorker   When I was in high school, at Horace Mann, in the Bronx, in the nineteen-seventies, everyone took pride in the brilliant eccentricity of our teachers. There was an English teacher who slipped precepts from the Tao Te Ching into his classes on the Bible and occasionally urged us to subvert standardized tests by answering every question with the word “five.” There was a much loved language teacher who would pelt distracted students with a SuperBall. There was a history instructor who, in a lecture on how the difficulty of delivering mail in the early days of the republic helped shape Federalist ideas, would drop his trousers to reveal patterned boxer shorts.[...]

One group of boys stood apart; they insisted on wearing jackets and ties and shades, and they stuck to themselves, reciting poetry and often sneering at the rest of us. A few of them shaved their heads. We called them Bermanites, after their intellectual and sartorial model, an English teacher named Robert Berman: a small, thin, unsmiling man who papered over the windows of his classroom door so that no one could peek through.[...]

Berman could be mercilessly critical. He called boys “fools” and “peons” and scoffed at their vulgar interests in pop culture, girls, and material things. He was a fastidious reader of students’ work and a tough, sometimes capricious grader. He noted carefully who accepted his authority and who resisted. After he overheard one boy imitating him in the hallway, he covered the boy’s next paper with lacerating comments: “You used to be better.” On the rare occasion when a student earned his praise, he would be celebrated. Now and then, Berman would ask for a copy of a particularly well-wrought paper, which the boys took as the highest compliment; they called it “hitting the wow.” 

One afternoon in 1969, Berman announced that a tenth grader named Stephen Fife had written a paper that indicated he could be the next Dickens. Soon afterward, Berman asked Fife to see him after class. This was the ultimate invitation: personal attention from the master, who would go over a student’s writing line by line, inquire about problems with his parents, and perhaps tutor him privately in art history or Russian.[...]

Rishumei Aharon: New Rulings From Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l

5tjt by Rabbi Yair Hoffman   As a follow up to the previous reviews of both the Mesoras Moshe as well as volume nine of the Igros Moshe, a number of people (laymen, Poskim, and Rabbis) requested more information on the book entitled “Rishumei Aharon” mentioned in a previous review.  The Rishumei Aharon (Vol. I 92 pages and Vol. II 45 pages, beautifully arranged and typeset by Machon Daas Z’keinim in Lakewood, NJ) was written by Rav Aharon Felder, a Talmid Muvhak of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.

Rav Felder is the Rav of Congregation Bnai Israel in Philadelphia, and is the son of Rabbi Gedaliah Felder z”l from Toronto, a renowned Posek as well.   A responsa to Rav Aharon Felder, the author, appears in Igros Moshe YD Vol. IV #43.

Rav Felder spent 14 years with Rav Moshe Feinstein and spent much time with him during those years.   Rav Felder is a renowned expert in the laws of Gittin, and is often consulted upon in matters relating to Gittin such as the spelling of specific English names.  Aside from the rulings and halachic opinions found in the Sefer, there are some remarkable vignettes of Rav Feinstein zt”l – that are not found elsewhere.

Rav Felder is also known for his “tells-it-like-it-is” style (perhaps because of his Galicianisher upbringing), which makes both volumes very interesting reads.  There are also rulings that, in this author’s opinion are rather surprising.

VIGNETTES OF RAV MOSHE

The first volume begins with a number of vignettes of Rabbi Felder’s Rebbe.  Rav Felder relates that Rav Moshe told him once that while in Luban, he was married on a Friday afternoon. His own father was his Mesader Kiddushin – not just for him but for a few other couples as well.  Their sole Sheva Brachos was on Shabbos and no further Sheva Brachos, unlike the general custom prevalent today. [...]

Rabbi Berkowitz - advances in dealing with abuse in Chassidic community

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Refusing to apologize for errors - Short term benefits

Scientific American    [...] most apologies exact some toll on the offender, as it can be embarrassing to admit a mistake publicly or even to just one other person. And, as with Deen’s apology, the offender often suffers additional penalties as a result of the admission of guilt. Confession of a wrongdoing can damage a relationship, lead to loss of status or power, or even result in the termination of employment. These common costs may help explain the seemingly widespread reluctance to say, “I’m sorry.”  From politicians and professional athletes to friends and co-workers, denial of culpability is far too familiar.

Beyond avoiding the embarrassment and potential penalty associated with admitting a wrongdoing, new research by Tyler Okimoto and colleagues in Australia suggests that there are deeper internal motives for our refusal to apologize. Okimoto's research shows that those who refuse to express remorse maintain a greater sense of control and feel better about themselves than those who take no action after making a mistake.

Such findings may seem paradoxical, given the common wisdom that we should take responsibility for our actions and say we are sorry if we do harm. Indeed, research confirms the benefits of apologies for both victims and offenders. For victims, an apology serves as a form of moral restitution. When you apologize to a person you have offended, you convey a sense of power to that person. The victim can accept or reject the apology, and can extend or withhold forgiveness. As a result, the balance of power shifts from the offender to the offended.  Victims may assume a position of superiority when they take the moral high ground and offer mercy to the guilty party, or they may gain a sense of power over the transgressor by denying pardon. Thus for victims, the culprit's admission of guilt and contrition can be restorative.

There are upsides to apologies for the offenders too. By acknowledging personal mistakes and conveying remorse, offenders may diffuse anger and decrease the impending punishment or penalty, enhance their image in the eyes of the victim and other people, regain acceptance in a social group, or restore personal relationships. They may even reduce their own sense of guilt.

Given that apologies offer a relatively simple way to mend relations and heal wounds for victims and offenders, why do people refuse to apologize? Beyond escaping punishment, there may be some psychological benefits to standing one's ground. For example, adopting a self-righteous stance may feed one's need for power. If the act of apologizing restores power to the victim, it may also simultaneously diminish the power of the transgressor. Thus actively denying any wrongdoing may allow the offender to retain the upper hand . If one cannot deny an error entirely, minimizing the error may be the next best thing.  Perhaps one reason that many felt Deen’s apology rang hollow was that she attempted to mitigate the severity of her infraction by stating that she only made the racial slur once, with a gun pointed at her head. [...]

Correcting the shame of the distribution of the disgraceful letter of 9 rabbis against Rav "S" at the Lakewood asifa of Lev L'Achim

 On Wednesday July 3 at 9:20 , there will be a major asifa in Lakewood of Lev L'Achim. This important event will be addressed by Rav Ezriel Auerbach shlita. Despite all the holy words that will surely be spoken - it is highly unlikely that what is truly required to be spoken about will be addressed. At the previous asifa in 2010 a document of shame and degradation was distributed that condemned one of Lakewood's most distinguished talmidei chachomim for being a moser - for reporting the abuse of his son to the police. It is embarrassing enough that the 9  well known rabbis signed this disgusting document against a father whose concern was for the welfare of Lakewood's children. However these expert rabbis apparently also didn't bothering checking out the fact that the father had in fact received a letter from Rav Sternbuch telling him that he was required to report the abuse. They were apparently ignorant of the elementary fact that even without receiving a psak from Rav Sternbuch and other gedolim the father not only had the right to report a child abuser but was obligated according to the views of the gedolei hador including Rav Eliashiv, Rav Wosner, the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Moshe Halberstam.  Their ignorance of the halachos dealing with child abuse - as clearly described in Yeshurun volume 15 -  is truly shameful and embarrassing.

To compound their shameful ignorance - they have so far failed to apologize to the talmid chachom that they publicly attacked in their letter. 

It would be appropriate that the repentance letter of Reb Dovid Epstein be distributed at this asifa . Apology letter of Reb Dovid Epstein

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

Elul, 5770 [August, 2010]

PROCLAMATION

It is clear that no one in the world has the authority to establish guilt on anyone without both [the accuser and accused] coming to an accepted bais din for the matter to be heard amongst "brothers." If one does this [establishes guilt without a determination of a bais din] even if he is "as tall as a cedar tree" [a great scholar] he has made an absolute error. And more so he [the accuser] may not take any damaging action against the accused and even more so may not bring any accusation to the secular authorities. Such actions [reporting made to the secular authorities] are elucidated in [Shulchan Aruch - Jewish code of law compiled in the 161h century] Choshen Mishpat chapter 388 [which discusses the penalties for "mesira" reporting to the secular authorities]. And there can be no [Jewish law] lawful and righteous means [to report to the secular authorities] other than to first show that one has in their possession a clear detailed ruling in writing from an expert bais din that includes specifics of the matter. And if one violates this ruling and commits the deed of reporting to the secular authorities it is incumbent upon him to rectify this misdeed and do everything possible to clear the accused of any trace of allegations with the secular authorities. And it does not need to be said that it is prohibited to assist and participate with them [the secular authorities] in their efforts to persecute a Jew.

Avrohom Spitzer Dayan - Skver

Tzvi Yosef Burstien - Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta of Lakewood

Eliyahu Levine - Rosh Kolle of Kolle Choshen Mishpat

Shlomo Gisinger - Rabbi of Cong Zichron Yaakov

Chaim Ginsberg - Rosh Chabura - Beth Med rash Gevoha

Shmuel Mayer Katz- Dayan - Beth Med rash Gevoha

Yosef ZimbaI - Rabbi - Congregation Westgate

Simcha Bunim Cohen - Rabbi - Congregation Ateres Yeshaya

Meir Reuvein Berkowitz - Rabbi - Congregation Whispering Pines Sefard

A Sad Day - Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm retires after a distinguished career at Y.U. - and apologizes for his handling of sex abuse allegations

YU In accord with an agreement reached 3 years ago, Rabbi Lamm's contract expired on June 30th and he announced his retirement  as Chancellor and Rosh Yeshiva of Y.U. He has had an association with Y.U. for over 60 years as a student, faculty member, rosh yeshiva, president and chancellor. In the 6 page retirement letter he devoted four paragraphs to an apology for  his inadequate handling of sex abuse charges in the 1980's.

In the Aleinu, mishtachavim is followed by modim, modim as in thanks. But there is another meaning as well, one that holds the key to real leadership and one upon which I reflect at this important transition in my personal and professional life. Jacob’s blessing to his son Judah, Yehudah, attah yodukha achekha (Gen. 49:8) literally means “Judah, your brothers will recognize you (as their leader).” However, the word yodukha, they will recognize you, is etymologically related to the word vidui, confession and therefore teaches us that only those who can, like Judah, confess, are those who can be acknowledged as real leaders.

And it is to this I turn as I contemplate my response to allegations of abuse in the Yeshiva community. At the time that inappropriate actions by individuals at Yeshiva were brought to my attention, I acted in a way that I thought was correct, but which now seems ill conceived. I understand better today than I did then that sometimes, when you think you are doing good, your actions do not measure up. You think you are helping, but you are not. You submit to momentary compassion in according individuals the benefit of the doubt by not fully recognizing what is before you, and in the process you lose the Promised Land. I recognize now that when we make decisions we risk, however inadvertently, the tragedy of receiving that calamitous report: tarof toraf Yosef, “Joseph is devoured,” all our work is in vain, all we have put into our children has the risk of being undone because of a few well intentioned, but incorrect moves. And when that happens—one must do teshuvah. So, I too must do teshuvah.

True character requires of me the courage to admit that, despite my best intentions then, I now recognize that I was wrong. I am not perfect; none of us is perfect. Each of us has failed, in one way or another, in greater or lesser measure, to live by the highest standards and ideals of our tradition — ethically, morally, halakhically. We must never be so committed to justifying our past that we thereby threaten to destroy our future. It is not an easy task. On the contrary, it is one of the greatest trials of all, for it means sacrificing our very egos, our reputations, even our identities. But we can and must do it. I must do it, and having done so, contribute to the creation of a future that is safer for innocents, and more ethically and halakhically correct.

Biblical Judah was big enough to admit that he was small. He confesses a mistake. He can experience guilt and confront it creatively. After the incident with Tamar, he does not offer any tortured rationalizations to vindicate himself. He says simply and forthrightly: tzadkah mimmeni (Gen. 38:26), she was right and I was wrong. And with that statement Judah is transformed into a self-critical man of moral courage. He concedes guilt. He knows that he is guilty with regard to Joseph, and together with his brothers he says aval ashemim anachnu, “indeed, we are guilty.” Pushed to the limits of the endurance of his conscience, he rises to a new stature and achieves a moral greatness that is irrefrangible and pellucid.

This is what I am modeh as I reflect on my tenure. Tzadkah mimmeni. I hope that those who came forth and others who put their trust in me will feel that faith vindicated and justified.  Modeh ani.

One might think it appropriate to mark the formal end of a career in avodat ha-kodesh with the recitation of Havdalah, the blessing which marks the end of the sacred period of holy days. Yet my whole career in avodat ha-kodeh has been one of havdalah.

Prohibitions Before Washing Negel Vasser – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt     There are three things that should not be done before one washes Negel Vasser in the morning.

1. One should not touch the open areas of the face before washing Negel Vasser on the  hands:  These are the mouth, the nose, the ears and the eyes.  This is based upon the Gemorah in Shabbos (108b) which indicates that there is a danger to these orifices on account of the Ruach Rah that exists on the hands before it is washed off.  The Gemorah gives a warning to other body parts as well, but Rashi explains that these areas do not refer to Negel Vasser but to other times.   There is a debate as to whether the outer sections maybe touched, such as the lips, outer nose, outer ear, and eye lids.  It is best to be stringent according to the Mishna Brurah (MB 4:12). [...]

Rabbi Adlerstein calls for less heated rhetoric and a greater understanding of the other side

Cross Currents   [...]  But is it fair to be conclusory about Piron? Should we not ask what kind of cultural ethos he wants to see. Does he want to cut of the peyos of residents of Meah Shearim? Does he want to lower the charedi birthrate so they won’t take over? Or does he want to see charedi soldiers in Tzahal (and DL ones, and secular ones) met with a smile and appreciation? Much more importantly – does it matter so much what Piron (a BT, rav and a ram!) wants? What kind of change is the voting public looking for? Is it fair to assume that they want what Piron wants? Should we not at least ask the question? No, I don’t think Rabbi Grylak is paranoid, but I think he is helping to ease his readership down the path of maximizing rejection of the other side, while paying minimum attention to their legitimate concerns and needs. [Aside: Last week, Hamodia put together an evening of messages on the topic by important speakers around the world. They did stay close to the predictable message, with one important exception. Rabbi Aharon Lopiansky of Silver Spring (a colleague on the editorial board of Klal Perspectives) spoke, among other things of the need to understand what the other sides is saying. He pointed to an Akeidah (Kedoshim #65) who says that women who truly care about their appearance use mirrors that maximize, rather than minimize, their blemishes. That way, they can better attend to them cosmetically. Listening to our critics, with their inflated language, helps us focus on our own faults. You can listen to his presentation by calling  718-650-6050  and selecting option 6.]

Rabbi Grylak asks in large type, “Does a demand for forced social change fit in with the concept of democracy as you know it in the United States?” Unfortunately, he picked the wrong week to ask this question. Rabbi Grylak, meet Justice Kennedy, who led the US Supreme Court in a massive exercise in social engineering last week. Rabbi Grylak also asks, “From a democratic point of view, do you see a possibility for the US government to dictate the nature of education in keeping with the American ethos? Can they do this in Satmar, in Lakewood?” Maybe it is time for another US visit, Rabbi Grylak. Indeed, that is the law of the land. Some may try to operate in violation of the laws mandating general studies instruction (even for home schoolers!), but the laws in fact exist. They uphold the need of a democratic society to assure that children are given both a chance at vocational success as well as share some information about the United States that is meant to bring about some social cohesion.

Like Yair Lapid, what I say I would like to see is not the same as what I would settle for as first steps along the way. Rabbi Grylak’s concession that over-the-top rhetoric by any camp leads to over-the-top reaction by the opposing camp is a good place to start, and I am happy to have been the shliach to make it happen.

And, to illustrate the complexity and nuance of life, I will recall for readers the time some years ago that I joined an Aguda mission to Israel. We spent some time in Knesset; I was chosen to deliver a message from the group at a meeting with MK Chaim Ramon. My piece de resistance was a beautiful appreciation of the role of the beis medrash and learning as the source of strength of the Nation. It was delivered with the apparent approval of the other participants. It was authored by Chaim Nachman Bialik.

Daniel Moaz - Found guilty of killing parents

Haaretz    A man was found guilty on Monday of brutally stabbing and killing his parents at their Jerusalem home, and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. 

The Jerusalem District Court convicted Daniel Maoz on all the charges brought against him, including two counts of murder and destruction of evidence.  [...]

The judges compared the events that unfolded to "a horror film" as they noted that Maoz demonstrated no remorse for his actions. 

"At the very least, the defendant should have felt the requisite pain, guilt and remorse. Alas, the defendant did not regret his actions, and tried to slander his twin brother – a claim that was dismissed out of hand."[...]

Rav Yitzchok Scheiner - Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi are a “reform movement” that want to destroy Charedi Judaism

Guest post by RaP

   Rav Yitzchok Scheiner Delivers a Tough Message

Significance of Rav Salanter meeting Rav Hirsch?

I found the following description strange on many levels. Rav Salanter had been in Germany since 1857 dealing with kiruv issues and had not met Rav Hirsch nor was he familiar with his writings. In addition despite being involved full time with kiruv he had not apparently not mastered German after 15 years? (Prof. Etkes said he knew enough to read the newspapers.) This account indicated that they didn't really have much to talk about nor did they meet again or work together on a common project. In addition Rav Hirsch was devoting years pursuing the legal right for his congregation to separate from the official government sanctioned Jewish congregation - something that not only his congregation wasn't interested in nor did the leading halachic authority of Germany - Rav Wurtzburger - think it desirable and basically snubbed Rav Hirsch over this matter. I would have assumed that meeting with Rav Hirsch as well as Rav Hildesheimer  and the Malbim would be primary goals - working to stop Reform and the Haskala - but it didn't happen. Why not?

[This is from Rabbi Elias' edition of the 19 Letters] In the Israelit, on March 22, 1906, Rabbi Naftali Hertz Ehrmann published an account of Rabbi Yisrael Salanter's stay in Berlin  about thirty years earlier and of his desire to meet Rabbi S. R. Hirsch. Translation from (The Light, on 14 Nisan 5738):

At about this time, Rav Shimshon (ben R'foel) Hirsch arrived in  Berlin. He often came to Berlin at the beginning of the 1870's in order  to prepare the way for the" Austrittsgesetz, ,,' which was finally passed  in 1876. Three years older than Rav Yisroel, he was always under  great strain and beset with many different types of work which made  great demands on him at all hours of the day and night throughout his  stays in Berlin. He sought out ministers, ministerial advisers, and  influential representatives in every area and, through personal represen­tation of the case, tried to win over the authoritative factions in favor  of the law. In the evenings, his correspondence and writing awaited  him, and this often kept him occupied until well into the night. Rav  Yisroel had a great longing to become acquainted with Rav Hirsch and  to hear his views on the measures for consolidation of traditional Jewry  in Russia. He had great respect for the regenerator of German Jewry,  and no one else was more deeply convinced of the desperate need of  Russian Jewry for such a personality. Questions of etiquette-regarding  which of the two was to visit the other first-did not exist for Rav  Yisroel. He asked me (as I was taking care of a few small duties for  Rav Hirsch during his stay) to ask Rav Hirsch when would be the most convenient time to visit him .... When I saw how the time of this great  man was so completely taken, up, I hardly had the courage to mention  Rav Yisroel's wish, for I knew that its fulfillment would cost him more  precious time ... I therefore ventured to remark that the matter was not  so urgent and the visit could easily be postponed for a few days.  However, Rav Hirsch refused to hear of it, and asked me to ask Rav  Yisroel to honor him with his visit the very next evening ...

More than 30 year have passed since the memorable evening. But  the overwhelming impression of the meeting between these two great  personalities has remained with me until this day. Their similarities and  their differences; the overflowing wisdom of their thoughts, and the  restrained modesty of their spoken words. The expression in Rav  Hirsch's eyes from which his great, noble soul seemed to pour forth,  and the flashing sparks which shot out from the gaze of Rav Yisroel  and blazed around his great learned brow. All that and so much more­ all of it remains in my memory as vividly as if it had just happened  yesterday. How different were the two great men in speech and bear­ing, and in various other external aspects which draw the attention; and  yet how similar and related were they in their thoughts and their  spiritual life-in short, in everything which makes a man a Jew. Never  have I sensed the binding and brotherly strength of the Torah l'tzaref  es hab'riyos more deeply than in the moment when the two men  reached out their hands to each other. Rav Yisroel who, even in  general conversation, never let a word leave his lips which had not  been carefully considered from all sides, and who knew in addition  how precious Rav Hirsch's time was - particularly then - came straight  to the matter which lay on his heart more than on anyone else's. He  explained the dangers which he believed threatened the future of  Russian Jewry and asked Rav Hirsch for his views on how best to  combat them. Rav Hirsch, in his modesty, thought that he was not  familiar enough with Jewish life in Russia to be able to express an  authoritative opinion. Rav Yisroel however, he reasoned, must surely  have thought about the problem a great deal himself, and he therefore  asked him to first state his opinion. Rav Yisroel pointed out that the  best means of preserving the younger generation for Jewry - to win  back their respect - was through literature in the Russian language  permeated with the true Jewish spirit. The exceedingly salutary results  which would ensue from writings of this nature were to him quite  indisputable. The tragedy was, however, that those Russian Jews who were permeated with the truth of Judaism could not write Russian, and  those who had acquired a secular education and had mastered the  Russian language had broken with traditional Judaism. So that the  production of such writings seemed unimaginable. Rav Hirsch suggest­  ed that if this was the case, then perhaps it might be proper to translate  into Russian works written in the German language for this purpose.  The translation, if necessary, could even be done by a non-Jew. This  idea met with Rav Yisroel's full approval, and he asked Rav Hirsch to  specify a few suitable works for this purpose. Rav Hirsch suggested the  works of Salomon Plessner. At this point, I allowed myself to enquire  whether the writings of Rav Hirsch, himself, would not be especially  qualified, particularly such a work as The 19 Letters. Rav Hirsch  replied that it would naturally please him greatly if, through a translation of his writings, this great undertaking could be accomplished.  Neither was fundamentally opposed to a Hebrew translation. I later  heard this from their own mouths. But they believed that the great  benefits which they hoped would result from the propagation of the  spirit of these writings could be effected more easily and more perma­nently if the remedy was given in the same form as the disease had  been transmitted. On the way home, Rav Yisroel asked me to procure  for him that very evening a copy of The 19 Letters and to read through  it with him so that he might be able to form an opinion for himself.  That was, however, easier said than done. At that time, Rav Yisroel  had hardly begun to read German, and so we read until deep into the  night and for still another few days after that, until we finished the first  letter. Another few weeks passed before we finally completed the book.  Rav Yisroel summed up his opinion of it, "The book must not only be  translated into Russian, but also into loshon ha-kodesh."