Tuesday, August 6, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Happiness May Come With Age, Study Says
NY Times
It is inevitable. The muscles weaken. Hearing and vision fade. We get
wrinkled and stooped. We can’t run, or even walk, as fast as we used to.
We have aches and pains in parts of our bodies we never even noticed
before. We get old.
It sounds miserable, but apparently it is not. A large Gallup poll has
found that by almost any measure, people get happier as they get older,
and researchers are not sure why.
“It could be that there are environmental changes,” said Arthur A. Stone, the lead author of a new study based on the survey,
“or it could be psychological changes about the way we view the world,
or it could even be biological — for example brain chemistry or
endocrine changes.”[...]
The results, published online May 17 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,
were good news for old people, and for those who are getting old. On
the global measure, people start out at age 18 feeling pretty good about
themselves, and then, apparently, life begins to throw curve balls.
They feel worse and worse until they hit 50. At that point, there is a
sharp reversal, and people keep getting happier as they age. By the time
they are 85, they are even more satisfied with themselves than they
were at 18.[...]
Are Orthodox Feminists the agents of change in the Israeli Orthodox World?
New Republic [...] But Haredi men continued to
harass women in Beit Shemesh. Less than a year later, in June 2012,
Vered Daniel, an acquaintance of Philipp’s, went shopping in a Haredi
neighborhood. In a special effort to respect ultra-Orthodox
sensitivities, she wore a long skirt and blouse. Although modest by
modern-Orthodox standards, Daniel’s outfit marked her as someone who was
clearly not Haredi. When she left her car with her infant daughter in
her arms, Haredi men screamed at her for dressing immodestly and spat on
her. Alarmed, Daniel ran back to her car, locking herself and her baby
inside as the mob battered the vehicle with sticks and stones, shattering a window.
For
Philipp, the attack on Daniel was “beyond the beyond.” “Attacking a
mother with a young child in her arms—” recalls Philipp, her eyes
filling with tears. “She was completely helpless.” The incident drove
her to do something she would previously never have contemplated. Like
most Orthodox women, there was little about the word “feminism” that
spoke to Philipp. She did not consider herself political. But as
tensions grew in Beit Shemesh, she had started to follow the debates in
online women’s groups, “deep debates,” she says, “about pluralistic
society, tolerance.” It was, she says, “my first real exchange with
secular and non-Orthodox Israelis.”
The
day after Daniel’s attack, Philipp filed a police complaint over the
city’s failure to remove the modesty signs. But then, rightly sensing
that this would result in little change, she reached out to a woman from
a world completely different than her own. In doing so, she became a
pivotal figure in a clash between the ultra-Orthodox and a widening
coalition of women to determine the core values of Israeli society. [...]
Haredim have sought to drive “corrupt” elements out of their
neighborhoods by making them inhospitable places for those who are not
ultra-Orthodox. The victims of this strategy are usually women, whose
bodies have become the battleground in what is essentially a religious
turf war. And as Philipp and Vered Daniel learned, the harassment can
easily become violent. Miriam Friedman Zussman, a modern-Orthodox friend
of Philipp’s, says: “I never considered myself a feminist. I didn’t
think I had to be. Then suddenly, you start to say, ‘You want me to wear
what? You want me to say what? You want my daughter to wear what?’... It’s the boiled frog theory."
And so, for the first time, women like Nili Philipp have started to cross the secular-religious divide. [...]
Nili Philipp had briefly met, and liked, Erez-Likhovski when she had
testified before a Knesset committee on religious women’s issues. And
when she decided to fight back against the Haredim, it was
Erez-Likhovski she called. She knew she was doing something new. Most
Israelis would “never think that religious women would align themselves
with those radical feminist women from the Reform movement,” says
Philipp. “They would just assume we’d be good girls and listen to our
rabbis.” [...]
Sunday, August 4, 2013
Police complaint made because of intimidation against Waks family for reporting child abuse
Waks Police Complaint 20130516224820 Solo Police Statement update and correction
So to summarise, there were 2 assaults, both reported to the police:
15th of May, 2013, Shavuos; &
Saturday August
3, 2013.
Zephaniah Waks
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Rabbi Rapoport's clarification regarding the Levy abuse case
Rabbi Rapoport just issued a clarification of his widely misunderstood statement regarding the Levy case
My statement about the ‘arbitrariness’ of the age of consent (News, July 26) has been terribly misrepresented. In no way did I intend to minimise the severity of a sexual relationship with someone underage or to defend the perpetrator. On the contrary, I emphasised that even if sexual contact began when Goldsobel was over the legal age of consent, Levy still transgressed Jewish law, it was an ethical misdemeanour and may well have been exploitative.Confidential propriety and moral integrity prevent me from providing an adequate explanation for my involvement in this case. However, lest my position be misconstrued as acquiescence to the widespread injustice to abuse victims, I state unequivocally: Sexual predators are a threat to society and must be incarcerated. Those with reasonable suspicion of abuse must inform legal authorities. I condemn those who belittle the plight of victims or ostracise them and show support for their abusers. I applaud and actively assist institutions that support victims.Rabbi Chaim Rapoport
Friday, August 2, 2013
Abuse in Australlia - Program about the shunning of the Waks family
The Waks family with their 17 children lived across from the Yeshiva,
or religious school, in Melbourne's tight-knit Hasidic Jewish
community.
When the oldest boy, Manny, was sexually molested by
two teachers, the impact on his faith, his family and the community was
devastating.
While Manny has lost his faith but not his love of
Judaism, his father Zephaniah has lost virtually all his friends in the
community as a result of going public.
To bring justice for those who have suffered in silence Manny
established Tzedek, a non profit advocacy organisation for Jewish
victims of child sexual abuse.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Rabbis who will not acknowledge sexual abuse because of lashon harah
Some correspondence I recently received clearly shows that there are rabbis - perhaps the majority - who will profess that while they are very concerned about the welfare of children - but it is less important than being makpid on lashon harah.
Summary of correspondence: His Rav claims that allegations read or heard were lashon harah unless charges were first upheld in beis din based on testimony of 2 kosher witnesses. Questioned whether the average person is allowed to read such allegations on a blog such as mine since they don't need to know and thus the lashon harah serves no purpose.
This is the view clearly expressed by Rav Menashe Klein Put another way, these rabbis refuse to accept even the existence of abuse unless it can be reported in ways that don't violate the prohibition of lashon harah.
Summary of correspondence: His Rav claims that allegations read or heard were lashon harah unless charges were first upheld in beis din based on testimony of 2 kosher witnesses. Questioned whether the average person is allowed to read such allegations on a blog such as mine since they don't need to know and thus the lashon harah serves no purpose.
This is the view clearly expressed by Rav Menashe Klein Put another way, these rabbis refuse to accept even the existence of abuse unless it can be reported in ways that don't violate the prohibition of lashon harah.
It is critical to realize that the same verse that prohibits lashon harah - also says that one should not stand by when someone is being hurt physically, psychologically or financially. In fact the commentaries - including that of Rav Elchonon Wasserman understand that there is no prohibition of lashon harah in a situation where a person can be saved from harm by speaking about it.
Vayikra (19:16) You shall not go up and down as a slanderer among your people; nor shall you stand against the blood of your neighbor; I am the Lord.
Relevant previous posts:
Rabbi Zwiebel of the Aguda saying lashon harah is a high price to pay to save kids from abuse
Rav Menashe Klein rejects the view of gedolei hador regarding child abuse - requires 2 witnesses and beis din
====================In contrast ===================
Rav Moshe Sternbuch saying that prohibition of lashon harah is not justification for not listening to allegations - he cites Rav Chaim Ozer and the Gerrer Rebbe.
Pischei Teshuva - saying not saying lashon harah to save people is worse than lashon harah
Rav Elchonon Wasserman - lashon harah prohibited only if intent to harm others
Rema - 2 kosher witnesses not needed
Relevant previous posts:
Rabbi Zwiebel of the Aguda saying lashon harah is a high price to pay to save kids from abuse
Rav Menashe Klein rejects the view of gedolei hador regarding child abuse - requires 2 witnesses and beis din
====================In contrast ===================
Rav Moshe Sternbuch saying that prohibition of lashon harah is not justification for not listening to allegations - he cites Rav Chaim Ozer and the Gerrer Rebbe.
Pischei Teshuva - saying not saying lashon harah to save people is worse than lashon harah
Rav Elchonon Wasserman - lashon harah prohibited only if intent to harm others
Rema - 2 kosher witnesses not needed
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Judge orders ex-Penn State executives to trial in abuse coverup
Reuters Harrisburg District Judge William Wenner,
after a two-day preliminary hearing, ordered a criminal trial to be held
for the university's former president, Graham Spanier, 65, its former
athletic director, Tim Curley, 59, and its former senior vice president
Gary Schultz, 63.
Sandusky, 69, a former assistant football coach, was convicted in June 2012 of 45 counts of sexual abuse involving 10 boys. He is serving a sentence of 30 to 60 years in a state prison
Spanier, Curley, and Schultz are accused of a "conspiracy of silence" for failing to report the shower incident to authorities, which permitted Sandusky to continue preying on boys. He met most of his victims through a charity he founded for at-risk youth. [...]
D.A. Hynes conduct raises Questions of Professional Conduct
NY Times In search of love and votes, Charles J. Hynes, the Brooklyn district attorney, cannot seem to stop tripping over himself.
Last week, he went on a television and radio show for the Orthodox
Jewish community and denounced Sam Kellner. Bearded and intense, a
bubbling fountain of words, Mr. Kellner is one of the rare few in the
Hasidic community who spoke publicly about the plague of child sexual
abuse. He helped the district attorney build cases against prominent
Hasidic leaders, including a man accused of molesting Mr. Kellner’s own
16-year-old son.
Or at least Mr. Kellner spoke until Brooklyn prosecutors turned around
two years ago and charged him with trying to extort his son’s accused
abuser, the Satmar cantor Baruch Lebovits.
The weakness of the case against Mr. Kellner is difficult to overstate.
On Monday in State Supreme Court, Mr. Hynes’s prosecutors pleaded for
more time to reinvestigate their rapidly disintegrating case.
None of which appeared to have given pause to Mr. Hynes. “I believe
there was a substantial effort by Mr. Kellner to gain money by making up
stories,” he told the host of the program, Zev Brenner, last week. “I
think we have a substantial case.”
It appears Mr. Hynes, who often emphasizes the management experience he
has accumulated over many decades, has violated the state’s rules of
professional conduct, which prohibit prosecutors from offering “any
opinion as to the guilt or innocence of a suspect” in a criminal matter.[...]
Mondrowitz beaten up in Jerusalem by vigilante
Algemeiner Avrohom Mondrowitz, a notorious fake rabbi and child psychologist who fled US arrest warrants for child molestation in 1984, was attacked and beaten by an unknown vigilante assailant last week in Jerusalem, according to cellphone video footage of the incident released exclusively to The Algemeiner.
“Isaac,” a 22-year old American studying in Jerusalem who recorded the scene, asked that his full name not be used and that his voice be altered in the footage.
The cameraman said he did not know the identity of the assailant nor was he, personally, someone who typically resorted to violence, but the frustrating circumstances surrounding Mondrowitz’s continued freedom from hundreds of accusers made this an occasion where “vigilante justice could be justified.”
Isaac, originally from the New York area, said that he was neither a victim of child abuse nor an activist, but knew many people who had suffered abuse and felt “someone has to do something,” and that he had to “speak up.”
Rav Kook's dilemma: Hesped for Hertzl
Shaalvim On the twentieth of Tammuz, 5664 (July 3,1904), Dr. Theodor Herzl (Benjamin Ze’ev) Herzl, founder of the Zionist movement, died at the tragically young age of forty-four. Rav Avraham Yitzhak Kook, the newly installed rabbi of the port city of Jaffa, was asked to participate in a memorial service to honor the departed leader. Rav Kook was placed in a difficult situation, for which there was no totally satisfactory solution. On the one hand, the Halakha is
quite specific when it comes to those who have deviated from the norms of Torah:
Whoever secedes from the way of the community, namely persons who throw off the yoke of commandments from upon their neck, and do not participate with the Jewish People in their observances, in honoring the festivals, and sitting in the synagogue and study house, but rather are free to themselves as the other nations, and so too the apostates and informers — for none of these persons does one mourn. Rather, their brothers and other relatives wear white (festive garments) and eat and drink, and make merry (Shulhan ‘Arukh, Yoreh De’ah 345:5).
However one might lionize Herzl, there was no getting away from the fact that his lifestyle was that of an assimilated Jew far from observance of traditional Judaism. If one were to adhere literally to the passage in Shulhan Arukh, the customary
hesped or eulogy for the deceased would be out of the question.
On the other hand, Rav Kook knew his flock. If in Jaffa itself Rav Kook might find a few individuals capable of relating to the halakhic objection to memorializing a declaredly secular Jew, in Rehovot and the other outlying settler communities, Herzl, with his patriarchal beard and searing eyes, was regarded as nothing less than a modern-day “prophet.” And Rav Kook had been engaged not only as rabbi of Jaffa, but of the recently established moshavot (colonies) as well. [...]
Monday, July 29, 2013
Rav Moshe Feinstein's grave damaged by Belz chassidim
bhol update July 31, 2013
bhol Belzer chassidim -who went to Har Menuchos for the previous rebbe's yahrzeit - caused serious damage to Rav Moshe Feinstein's tombstone. This was the result of the pushing of the chassidim to see their rebbe.
bhol Belzer chassidim -who went to Har Menuchos for the previous rebbe's yahrzeit - caused serious damage to Rav Moshe Feinstein's tombstone. This was the result of the pushing of the chassidim to see their rebbe.
Sunday, July 28, 2013
Lakewood: Child abuse must be handled by a beis din which doesn't exist!?
It has been a number of weeks since the Kolko confession and conviction. What lessons have been learned? Of course the most important question is what lesson has Lakewood learned?
On the face of it, it seems that Lakewood made a major mistake in how they handled the Kolko case. Kolko himself has confessed to being a molester to the secular court. He has allegedly also confessed before a number of rabbis who were scheduled to testify to this fact at the trial. Apparently then we have certified by both halacha and secular law that Kolko is in fact a child molester.
However if this is truth is obvious – then why has the Lakewood establishment been silent? Why haven't they at least acknowledged that they made a mistake and apologized to the family that they drove out of Lakewood for the alleged crime of mesira? Isn't it obvious to them that there was no mesira because the father's concern was to protect other children from an actual child molester?
The answer that I am hearing from Lakewood is a resounding, "No!" There are many who still claim that the reporting of Kolko constituted mesira – in particular Rabbi Yisroel Belsky. Rabbi Belsky in fact claimed in a letter that circulated Lakewood before trial that his investigation confirmed Kolko's innocence and that the father – Rabbi "S" was the abuser. The consensus of the reports I have gotten after the trial is that he hasn't changed his mind. This view is shared by many other rabbis in Lakewood. It is true that there are some who have changed their minds – but this is only in private. No one is acknowledging publicly that he erred.
It seems that there are at least 3 factions in Lakewood. 1) Kolko is innocent or at least never was a threat to any children. Since he is not a threat he is not a rodef and therefore there was no justification for calling the police. This seems to be the majority. 2) The other view is that Kolko is a child molester and even without a beis din or even a rav – it is clear that the police should have been called. No one of significance has publicly stated this view. 3) Kolko is in fact a child molester and major rabbis paskened that the police should be informed. However this group – in particular the rabbis – not only refuse to publically state that they paskened this way – but they allegedly lie when they are asked. They are afraid of telling the truth. Publicly this view doesn't exist.
Furthermore the population in Lakewood has 3 different approaches to understanding the conditions for calling the police.
1) A beis din of 3 rabbis is required to hear the claims and testimony of kosher witnesses is required. The purpose of the beis din is to determine halachic guilt or innocence. This approach asserts that without an explicit psak from a beis din – it is prohibited to go to the police. Even if guilt is determined – but if the beis din says that the matter can be handled internally – it is prohibited to call the police. This is the view explicitly stated by Rav Menashe Klein.
However if this is truth is obvious – then why has the Lakewood establishment been silent? Why haven't they at least acknowledged that they made a mistake and apologized to the family that they drove out of Lakewood for the alleged crime of mesira? Isn't it obvious to them that there was no mesira because the father's concern was to protect other children from an actual child molester?
The answer that I am hearing from Lakewood is a resounding, "No!" There are many who still claim that the reporting of Kolko constituted mesira – in particular Rabbi Yisroel Belsky. Rabbi Belsky in fact claimed in a letter that circulated Lakewood before trial that his investigation confirmed Kolko's innocence and that the father – Rabbi "S" was the abuser. The consensus of the reports I have gotten after the trial is that he hasn't changed his mind. This view is shared by many other rabbis in Lakewood. It is true that there are some who have changed their minds – but this is only in private. No one is acknowledging publicly that he erred.
It seems that there are at least 3 factions in Lakewood. 1) Kolko is innocent or at least never was a threat to any children. Since he is not a threat he is not a rodef and therefore there was no justification for calling the police. This seems to be the majority. 2) The other view is that Kolko is a child molester and even without a beis din or even a rav – it is clear that the police should have been called. No one of significance has publicly stated this view. 3) Kolko is in fact a child molester and major rabbis paskened that the police should be informed. However this group – in particular the rabbis – not only refuse to publically state that they paskened this way – but they allegedly lie when they are asked. They are afraid of telling the truth. Publicly this view doesn't exist.
Furthermore the population in Lakewood has 3 different approaches to understanding the conditions for calling the police.
1) A beis din of 3 rabbis is required to hear the claims and testimony of kosher witnesses is required. The purpose of the beis din is to determine halachic guilt or innocence. This approach asserts that without an explicit psak from a beis din – it is prohibited to go to the police. Even if guilt is determined – but if the beis din says that the matter can be handled internally – it is prohibited to call the police. This is the view explicitly stated by Rav Menashe Klein.
2) No beis din is needed since they have neither the power or competence to investigate the matter. However a rav needs to be consulted as to whether there is raglayim ledaver – credible evidence. The rav serves as the gatekeeper – but he is not poskening guilt or innocence. This is the view of the Aguda.
3) There is no reason to consult either a beis din or a rav. It is enough that that there is credible evidence that abuse has occurred. Since we are dealing with rodef – self‑protection – no rabbinical authority is needed. Only normal human judgment and knowledge is required to make the decision of whether to call the police. This is the view of the RCA and Rav Belsky's letter posted to the RCA website.
Unfortunately whether one needs to go to a beis din or not is at this point a moot point in Lakewood. That is because a person with an abuse allegation, no longer has a beis din in Lakewood dealing with these cases. In addition apparently no rav will posken these issues and publicly stand by his views. Anyone who goes to the police after receiving a psak will be labeled a moser. Thus the problem for Lakewood is – there is no longer any acceptable rabbinic mechanism for dealing with these cases. This was also the problem for the Aguda when they announced a few years ago that a rav (not even a beis din) had to be consulted for raglayim ledavar – and then a year later they acknowledged that they had no rabbonim who were willing to be publicly designated to deal with child molesting!
In Lakewood this is allegedly the result of a dispute been Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Mattisyahu Solomon. Rav Kotler is allegedly opposed to having a beis din for these matters and Rav Solomon is allegedly for the beis din. I was told by a number of sources that the beis din of Rav Solomon was dissolved after it ordered on alleged perpetrator to quit teaching and he threatened the beis din with a $10, 000, 000 lawsuit. The final nail in the coffin of the beis din was that Rav Kotler publicly sided with the accused. Thus Lakewood has a "catch 22" situation. Everyone acknowledges that child abuse is harmful and therefore halachicly it must be stopped. But there is no longer a mechanism in Lakewood for dealing with the problem so therefore the problem can't be dealt with! The only thing that can be dealt is condemning those people who go to the police without the permission they can't get.
This conflicting confusion in dealing with child abuse – is not limited to Lakewood. It is also clearly present in Rav Belsky. On the one hand he strongly condemned Rabbi "S" as a moser and a molester – and yet publicly published a statement on the RCA website saying that someone with credible evidence should go to the police (without mentioning either a beis din or a rav). In contradiction he is also quoted as saying that "in Lakewood we don't go to the police." However to show that he was serious about calling the police he said in the RCA statement that in one case in Brooklyn he had actually advised going to the police. So Rav Belsky does favor going to the police in certain circumstances - however most cases of molesting apparently don't meet his standards.
In sum, in Lakewood "one does not go to the police" and even though there are major rabbonim who will permit it in certain cases of abuse – they will never acknowledge that they permitted it. Thus no one will go to the police because they definitely will be destroyed as a moser. In Lakewood abuse is denied or covered up (in the immortal words of Rav Mattisyahu Solomon at an Aguda Conference). Sometimes molesters are asked to go to therapy - without any way of making sure they comply. Sometimes molesters are sent to Israel or other communities. There was even a case of the Lakewood establishment in which the rabbis naively tried curing pedophilia by have the pedophile marry an innocent orphan who didn't realize how she was being betrayed by the rabbis that she had been taught to blindly respect. In addition I have heard allegations that even when Rav Solomon's beis din was functioning and telling molesters to pay for therapy for their victim – that some of these molesters went on to molest other children - because they were allowed to keep teaching. Of course after molesting again, they again went to Rabbi Solomon's beis din – but the police were never called.
Unfortunately whether one needs to go to a beis din or not is at this point a moot point in Lakewood. That is because a person with an abuse allegation, no longer has a beis din in Lakewood dealing with these cases. In addition apparently no rav will posken these issues and publicly stand by his views. Anyone who goes to the police after receiving a psak will be labeled a moser. Thus the problem for Lakewood is – there is no longer any acceptable rabbinic mechanism for dealing with these cases. This was also the problem for the Aguda when they announced a few years ago that a rav (not even a beis din) had to be consulted for raglayim ledavar – and then a year later they acknowledged that they had no rabbonim who were willing to be publicly designated to deal with child molesting!
In Lakewood this is allegedly the result of a dispute been Rav Malkiel Kotler and Rav Mattisyahu Solomon. Rav Kotler is allegedly opposed to having a beis din for these matters and Rav Solomon is allegedly for the beis din. I was told by a number of sources that the beis din of Rav Solomon was dissolved after it ordered on alleged perpetrator to quit teaching and he threatened the beis din with a $10, 000, 000 lawsuit. The final nail in the coffin of the beis din was that Rav Kotler publicly sided with the accused. Thus Lakewood has a "catch 22" situation. Everyone acknowledges that child abuse is harmful and therefore halachicly it must be stopped. But there is no longer a mechanism in Lakewood for dealing with the problem so therefore the problem can't be dealt with! The only thing that can be dealt is condemning those people who go to the police without the permission they can't get.
This conflicting confusion in dealing with child abuse – is not limited to Lakewood. It is also clearly present in Rav Belsky. On the one hand he strongly condemned Rabbi "S" as a moser and a molester – and yet publicly published a statement on the RCA website saying that someone with credible evidence should go to the police (without mentioning either a beis din or a rav). In contradiction he is also quoted as saying that "in Lakewood we don't go to the police." However to show that he was serious about calling the police he said in the RCA statement that in one case in Brooklyn he had actually advised going to the police. So Rav Belsky does favor going to the police in certain circumstances - however most cases of molesting apparently don't meet his standards.
In sum, in Lakewood "one does not go to the police" and even though there are major rabbonim who will permit it in certain cases of abuse – they will never acknowledge that they permitted it. Thus no one will go to the police because they definitely will be destroyed as a moser. In Lakewood abuse is denied or covered up (in the immortal words of Rav Mattisyahu Solomon at an Aguda Conference). Sometimes molesters are asked to go to therapy - without any way of making sure they comply. Sometimes molesters are sent to Israel or other communities. There was even a case of the Lakewood establishment in which the rabbis naively tried curing pedophilia by have the pedophile marry an innocent orphan who didn't realize how she was being betrayed by the rabbis that she had been taught to blindly respect. In addition I have heard allegations that even when Rav Solomon's beis din was functioning and telling molesters to pay for therapy for their victim – that some of these molesters went on to molest other children - because they were allowed to keep teaching. Of course after molesting again, they again went to Rabbi Solomon's beis din – but the police were never called.
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)