Israeli court rules teen can’t be forced to go to yeshiva

Haaretz    The Haifa District Court overturned a Magistrate's Court ruling that forced a 16-year-old boy to study in a yeshiva as his father demanded, against his will. The court accepted the youth's appeal and ordered that he be allowed to register at a technical school of his choice. 

The youth's parents are separated. Both are religious, and the mother supported her son's wish. The District Court criticized the Magistrate's Court for not calling the youth to the witness stand or requesting to hear his opinion, and for ignoring the report of a social worker that supported the boy’s stance. The mother told the court that the standard of studies in the yeshiva was very low, that it does not prepare students properly for the matriculation exams, and that many students have left the yeshiva. The judges, Shoshana Stemer, Adi Zarnakin and Rivka Lemelshtrich summoned the youth to their chambers and heard his opinion. The youth was represented by attorney Efrat Venkart of the Justice Ministry department of legal aid. [...]

Lashon Hara:Did Chofetz Chaim transform a moral issue into a legal one?

[updated see below] How do we know that lashon harah (making derogatory statements about others) is prohibited? The most obvious candidate for the prohibition of lashon is Vayikra (19:16), Do not spread gossip amongst your people....  However the Rambam in Sefer HaMtizvos (301) says that this is a prohibition for rechilus (gossip) and motzi shem rah (slander) and does not mention lashon harah at all. .In contrast the Rambam in his later work Mishna Torah (Hilchos De'os 7:1) states that this verse is the source for the prohibition of rechilus (gossip) and that lashon hara and motzi shem rah are also included in this Torah commandment. The Chofetz Chaim says that the verse is only about rechilus and that lashon harah is learned by kal v'chomer from rechilus. [He says that consequently there is a problem for the Ravad who disagrees with the Rambam and says that rechilus is more severe than lashon harah – and thus the Ravad must learn lashon harah from a different verse.]

The Bavli also does not provide a verse for the prohibition of lashon harah. Rather the concern is for the prohibition of slander. Kesuvos (26a) mentions a debate regarding motzi shem rav – is it learned from Vayikra (19:16) or is learned from Devarim (23:10) Guard yourself from all evil. It does not ask about lashon harah. The verse in Vayikra is also cited as the source of rules regarding judges. He is not to be harsh to one litigant and gentle to the other. The deliberations of the court are not to be revealed.

One obvious explanation as to the lack of sources is that the Talmud does not clearly differentiate between gossip (rechilus) and derogatory comments (lashon harah) but rather uses the terms interchangably. We see this also from Yerushalmi (Peah 1:1) which does in fact ask for the source of prohibition of lashon harah. It says there is a dispute whether lashon harah is learned from the prohibition of gossip (Vayikra 19:16) or from Guard yourself from all evil (Devarim 23:10) – just as the Bavli asked regarding slander (motzi shem rah). Rav La says that prohibition against spreading gossip indicates a prohibition against "lashon harah –rechilus." [both terms together as if lashon harah is an adjective modifying rechilus] Rav Nechmiah said one should not be like a peddler who carries the words of one and brings them to another and vice versa. 

אזהרה ללשון הרע מניין ונשמרת מכל דבר רע אמר רבי לא תני רבי ישמעאל לא תלך רכיל בעמך זו רכילות לשון הרע תני ר' נחמיה שלא תהא כרוכל הזה מטעין דבריו של זה לזה ודבריו של זה לזה

The question is then whether it is true that before the Rishonim there was not a precise differential meaning for rechilus and lashon harah and that the terms were used interchangably? This would make sense if speaking negatively about others was a moral issue rather than a legal one. In other words if speaking lashon harah was a problem of character or midos and not halacha. If this is true than the revolution of the Chofetz Chaim was not that he was the first to create a Shulchan Aruch of the issur of lashon harah but rather that he succeeded in transforming lashon harah from midos to halacha. While it is true that bad midos are also prohibited by halacha – but there is no need for precisely describing the parameters as the Chofetz Chaim has done regarding the prohibitions of lashon harah/rechilus. 

This issue of whether lashon harah is primarily midos or issur is discussed by Rav Asher Weiss (Minchas Asher Vayikra 19:16 #41) and Dr. Benny Brown Pdf fixed link  [ and Daas Torah link] (From Principles to Rules and from Musar to Halakhah:The Hafetz Hayim’s Rulings on Libel and Gossip) and Rabbi Asher Buchman pdf (Legislating Morality: The Prohibition of Lashon Hara in Hakira) who discusses why Rambam placed these laws in Hilchos De'os which describes character perfection)

update (10/16/13) The Chofetz Chaim himself made the distinction between moral (mussar) and halacha in his explanation of how he could use Rabbeinu Yonah as a source - when it was  mussar (moral) not a halacha sefer

Chofetz Chaim (Lashon Harah – Introduction: Comment): The reader should not find it astounding that even though my entire sefer is based on halachic principles and conclusions, but I nevertheless cite in a number of places proofs from Rabbeinu Yonah's sefer – Shaarei Teshuva which is a mussar book [not halacha]. That is because if one examines Rabbeinu Yonah's words in a number of places it is clear that he was very careful with his words and they do not deviate from the halacha. In particular this is true concerning his writings about lashon harah. In fact everything he wrote there is a source in the Talmud as I will explain G‑d willing in this sefer. However he is very sparing in his words and he doesn't cite his sources contary to the practice of Rishonim. Nevertheless, in most cases I did not depend exclusively on the rulings of Rabbeinu Yonah – except in circumstances where a leniency could be inferred (and this is true for other Mussar books).

Progress in dealing with Domestic Abuse

Times of Israel      It was only when her sons came at her with knives that she realized keeping quiet was not going to work. 

For nine years, her rabbis had told her not to speak up about her husband’s verbal, physical and sexual attacks. They assured her that the abuse would pass, that if she obeyed his every wish — folding his napkin just so or letting him do as he liked in bed — the attacks would end and he would stop telling their grown sons she was a bad mother. 

But when her sons began to threaten her, she knew it was time to leave.

Taking her youngest children, she turned to Yad Sarah, a highly regarded Israeli charity founded by former Jerusalem Mayor Uri Lupolianski. The organization mainly focuses on medical services, but it also runs a domestic abuse division geared toward Orthodox Jews. A professional there directed her to Bat Melech, a shelter for battered religious women. [..]

The wall of silence surrounding sensitive domestic issues in the haredi Orthodox community has long been seen as an impediment to successfully addressing them. Yad Sarah and Bat Melech have sought to change the situation — and their efforts appear to be bearing fruit.

A decade ago, haredi community leaders rarely spoke openly about violence against women. Now leading rabbis are working with experts to fight abuse in the community. [...]

Rachel Imeinu and the Rescue of the Jewish people

5TJT by Rabbi Yair Hoffman    [...] Yaakov knew that Hashem Yisboruch would not be able to resist the cries of a mother.  A young mother, who died in childbirth at the age of 26, and was a remarkable tzadaikes.

Yaakov Avinu did not bury Rachel in the ancestral plot his grandfather Avrohom Avinu had purchased.  He did not bury her at Maaras HaMachpeilah in Chevron.  She would not be buried with the other Avos and Imahos.  Her destiny lay elsewhere.

Yaakov Avinu buried her on the side of the road – on the path toward Yerushalayim, on the path in  Beis Lechem.

Why? Why?!  Why?!?

She was the love of Yaakov Avinu’s life.  Why didn’t he bury her next to him?  Why did he not bury her with the Imahos and the Avos?

The answer is one we all know, of course.  Because when we get up to the B in the above mnemonic, the Babylonians, the same thing was going to happen.  The Jewish people being exiled to Babylonia, passing that road in Beis Lechem would be relegated to oblivion. [...]

Chacham Tzvi #1 Provides no heter to force a Get in a case of ma'os alei or where the husband loses leverage

I recently posted  an  article by Rabbi Hoffman  in 5TJT  about the use of cattle prods to force a husband to give a get.  He noted while it is clearly prohibited by the major poskim such as Rav Eliashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach - there are minority views such as the Chacham Tzvi which would allow it. [see 2005 Bedatz protesting against American cattle prod gittin]

"There are also Poskim who draw a distinction between the cases in the Gemorah and Shulchan Aruch and cases where the wife is no longer under the same roof as the husband. These Poskim write that the entire issue of limitation of forcing was only when they were under the same roof, but otherwise forcing when there is a concern that the wife would be an Agunah, left alone, is always permitted. The responsa of the Chacham Tzvi Siman 1 seems to indicate that he holds of this distinction. He writes that one may force a get either because of igun or because of the issues that Chazal enumerated. This is also the position of the Z’kain Aharon (Rabbi haLevy) in his responsa (#149). According to these Poskim the cattle prod get would be kosher."

Note Rabbi Hoffman tentativeness  - that the Chachom Tzvi would seem to accept the distinction of whether the wife is under the same roof. Thus the Chachom Tzvi at most implies that there might be a heter when the couple are living apart.

However I disagree with Rabbi Hoffman's apparent assertion that the Chachom Tzvi would allow the use of force in all cases where the couple are living apart.

I looked in the authoritative sefer Kefiya B'Get by Rav Tvi Gartner, expecting the find the Chachom Tzvi cited all over the place as a heter to use force. But I only found a single reference to it which is found below. [It is also not cited in review articles about aguna e.g., in the 111 pages of  Rabbi Breitowitz - Plight of the Aguna]

Chachom Tzvi says clearly that a get can be forced either because of the specific cases permitted by the gemora  or because of the issue of agunah. Rav Gartner explains  the Chachom Tzi as saying that force can be used in the case of aguna because it is similar to a forced sale in which the customer pays for the item and thus the "seller" loses nothing. This logic is described in Rabbi Hoffman's article in reference to the Rashbam and others. The simple question is does this in fact provide a heter to use a cattle prod to force a husband to give a get? (assuming of course that the government permitted its citizens to torture each other for religious reasons)

The answer is clearly no! Where the wife has requested the divorce because of ma'os alei - this is simply not a case of aguna. The overwhelming view of the poskim is that she is not an aguna because he didn't wish to divorce her and thus she still has a marriage. It is not the marriage she wants - but she is not an aguna. Even if there is a civil divorce - there is nothing preventing her from returning to him.

But what about the case where there is no possibility of reconciliation - doesn't the Chachom Tzvi allow force even in the case of ma'os alei? The answer again is clearly no! In most cases there are unresolved issues for which the giving of the get is the major motivation for the husband being able to obtain equitable custody or to resolve financial issues. Clearly the husband has much to lose by giving the Get. Thus even if you want to posken like the minority view of the Chachom Tzi - that in a case of aguna force can be use - his heter  doesn't apply in most modern cases.

In fact it apparently would only apply where the husband is only refusing to give a get out of spite - and he has nothing to lose by giving her the get.

Rav Hershel Schacter's lectures dealing with violence against husbands have been removed from YU website

At the bottom I have provided links to some of the posts dealing with the subject. It is important to note when rereading these posts how the world suddenly changed with the arrest of R Epstein and Wolmark. The recording have been removed from the YU website.

--------------------------------------
Guest Post (from someone who insists on remaining anonymous):

Daas Torah has previously featured several commentaries about Rabbi Schachter's advocacy of violence against men who haven't given a get, including on lectures posted on YU's website.  Rabbis Dovid and Daniel Eidensohn have noted that Rabbi Schachter's advocacy of violence is without halachic basis, and constitutes dangerous incitement to violence.  ORA claims Rabbi Schachter as its posek (Jewish Law decision-maker), and has previously disseminated Rabbi Schachter's incitement to violence.  Rabbi Schachter and ORA know very well that their incitement to violence could very well result in actual violence, and that very well may be their specific intention.  Indeed, a specific target of Rabbi Schachter and ORA's incitement was actually attacked by masked thugs, as previously covered on Daas Torah.  This puts to lie ORA's claim that it is against violence.   

YU has pulled Rabbi Schachter's lecture calling for violence from its website following the FBI sting operation. If there were nothing wrong with Rabbi Schachter's lecture, why would YU have taken it down?  

It is about time that Rabbi Schachter and ORA apologize for their abominable incitement to violence, which is against halacha and against the law.
==================================================
Video - YU Lecture series Shachter - Plight of the Agunah
Audio  - Rav Schachter's letter and links to various recordings of lectures
Web Archive: Rav Schachter "Options for helping Agunot"
Audio - Rav Schachter Aharon Friedman beaten police report
Rav Eliashiv denounces rabbis who force gittin  Rav Schachter Witholding Get is serious aveira
 Does Rav Schachter Permit Beatings
Rav Schacter's Occasional Mispeaking
Aharon Friedman beaten
Jewish Exponent reports Friedman assault

Dying Alabama congregation saved with $50K relocation grants

NY Times   [see also CNN 2008]

DOTHAN, Ala. — Five years ago, a Jewish businessman, worried that his synagogue was dying, put up $1 million to finance a program to recruit fellow Jews to move to a corner of the Deep South best known for peanuts. 

Alabama might not be the promised land, but the plan worked. 

The redbrick synagogue now has religion classes full of children, and a temple bowling team is starting. Six new Jewish families with 18 people who used to live in Florida, New York and elsewhere now call Dothan their home. Their arrival helped double the size of worship services, and more families are applying for the assistance. 

The businessman, Larry Blumberg, smiles when he talks about what has grown in the few years since he had the idea to pay moving expenses for families relocating to the area.[...]

Mr. Blumberg, who owns a chain of hotels, came up with a plan: offer Jewish families $50,000 in relocation assistance in exchange for pulling up their roots, moving to Dothan, getting involved at Temple Emanu-El and staying for at least five years.  [...]

A Rabbi's Tale of Abuduction, Torture - Newsday

 update 10/12/13 NY Post     Click  Rubin case documents 1998

2005 Bedatz protesting against American cattle prod gittin

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

Rabbis Belsky and Wolmark, amongst those who signed the seruv against Aharon, were accused by Rabbi Abraham Rubin of being responsible for an attack in which Rabbi Rubin was kidnapped and beaten to force him to give a get.
==============================================

A TALE OF ABDUCTION , TORTURE Newsday March 8, 1998  by Dan Morrison

On the evening of Oct. 23, 1996, as Rabbi Abraham Rubin walked home from synagogue toward his Borough Park home, two cars collided up the block at the intersection of 56th Street and 14th Avenue.

Rubin, 31, ran toward the scene of the accident, an apparent diversion. A man standing on the sidewalk in front of him suddenly turned and started punching him and grabbed his glasses. He was dragged into a waiting van, he says, where several assailants began beating him.

He did not have to ask why.

For five years, Rubin, an Orthodox Jew, had been involved in a bitter dispute with his estranged wife.

Rubin says he has refused to this day to grant his wife a religious divorce, known as a get, until she lets him see his two children, who live with her in Montreal.

In an interview that elaborated on charges in a lawsuit he has filed against his alleged captors, Rubin described his abduction and torture.

"I was expecting it, sooner or later," he said.

Inside the van, he said, paid assailants wrapped a black laundry bag around his head. As he was handcuffed and choked, a voice said in sarcastic Yiddish, "Ess vet zein gut It will be good . . .
Mir vilen nor die zalst a yid We only want you to be a Jew ."

As the van sped through Brooklyn, Rubin said, he was asked if he knew  Kol D'Alim G'var, a Talmudic commentary on the theory that might makes right.

The van stopped, and all the attackers left, except one, he said. "The rabbi is coming," he said he heard one of his assailants say. The door opened and new passengers entered.

"Do you understand English?" Rubin said he was asked. "Repeat my words."

Rubin said that when he refused to repeat the 12-line oath that grants a Jewish wife a divorce, punches and electric shocks rained down on him, first just a few and then a torrent - so many that he began reciting the "Viduy," the traditional Jewish deathbed prayer of repentance.

According to the lawsuit Rubin filed against his alleged captors, they zapped him with an electronic stun gun - in all, more than 30 times - including shocks to his genitals.

After passing out for about an hour, Rubin said, he was shaken awake. "Rabbi, wake up," a voice said. "The get is done."

He was transferred from the van to a car. "Don't be a moser," an informer, he said he was told. "If you know what's good for you, don't be a moser."

He said he was thrown from the car, still handcuffed and shrouded, and dumped outside a Brooklyn cemetery. A cab driver found the bloody rabbi and took him to the 66th Precinct. No arrests have been made in the attack.

Rubin, represented by Manhattan attorney Thomas Stickel, charges in a civil racketeering lawsuit filed in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn that Mendel Epstein, a well-known divorce mediator, took part in his "abduction and torture." Rubin said he learned the details of the plot during an investigation he and his friends conducted over several months.

Epstein's attorney has denied the charges. The suit also charges several other rabbis with planning or participating in the attack, including Martin Wolmark, a rabbi from the upstate Orthodox enclave of  Monsey, and Israel Belsky, a rabbi from the Ditmas Park section of Brooklyn.

In a telephone interview, Belsky denied taking part in the attack. "I have no connection to any of this," he said. "The guy is a crackpot. The whole thing is a frivolous action."

Robert Rimberg, an attorney for Wolmark, also denied the charges listed in the lawsuit. "As far as I know, and based on my investigation, there is no basis for it," he said. [...]

While no one has ever been prosecuted for a get-related attack in New York City, that may soon  change. Det. Robert Roddenberg of the 66th Precinct said Rubin's case might be the first of its kind to make it into a courtroom.

"Rubin is entitled to his day in court and the best investigation we can do," Roddenberg said. "Rubin is one of the few who have stood up. He was abducted. They beat the - - - out of him.

"They investigators spent an awful lot of time doing this case and it was really nitpicked to do it right," Roddenberg said. "It was done as well as any homicide case could be done. Just like not every homicide case gets solved, will this case get solved? That's up to the DA's office."

Lubavitcher Rebbe attacks Women's Liberation Movement

R Epstein and Wolmark original criminal complaint in get coercion case

This is the original criminal complaint filed against Rabbi Epstein and Wolmark and 2 others. It has since been modified by the addition of 6 others who were added to this complaint and who are also now in custody click link here

Mendel Epstein, Martin Wolmark, Ariel Potash, Jay Goldstein  (a/k/a "Yaakov"), Moshe Goldstein, Binyamin Stimler, David Hellman, Simcha Bulmash, Avrohom Goldsstein, and Sholom Shuchat

R Mendel Epstein and Wolmark FBI Filed Complaint

CBS News Video: R Epstein and Wolmark alleged kidnapping and torture for get case

"The Book of Woe" - A critical look at the DSM-5

Scientific American    This is a landmark book about a landmark book. Psychotherapist and author Greenberg first took on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM) in a blistering article in Wired in 2010. The Book of Woe is the nearly 400-page update, whose release coincided with the May 2013 release of the DSM-5, the fifth edition of the bible of mental health, which first appeared in 1952.

Relying heavily on interviews with distinguished insiders in the psychiatric establishment, Greenberg paints a picture so compelling and bleak that it could easily send the vulnerable reader into therapy. The basic message is this: everyone in the mental health profession knows full well that the DSM is a work of fiction—that the hundreds of “disorders” described therein are just labels for fuzzy, overlapping clusters of symptoms and that we have never found a definitive biological marker for even one of those disorders. Mental health professionals pretend that the disorders are real, but they're not, period.[...]

Psychiatrists are in the business of pathologizing and throwing drugs at everyday problems, and given the money at stake, perhaps nothing can stop this trend.

Anti-bullying programs don't work well - and the focus on bullying might cause problems

Time Magazine   A new study recently published in the Journal of Criminology suggests that the anti-bullying programs that have become popular in many schools may not be as useful as previously thought. The authors examined 7000 kids at 195 different schools to try to determine child and school influences on bullying. Surprisingly, the authors found that children who attended schools with anti-bullying programs were more likely to experience bullying than children who attended schools without such programs.  In fairness, the data is correlational, so it’s not possible to say that anti-bullying programs necessarily led to more bullying.  One could argue that, perhaps, schools with bigger bullying problems were more likely to implement anti-bullying programs.  Nonetheless, this data suggests such programs may not be terribly effective. [...]

But the bigger and better reality check is that bullying behavior has actually been declining. Researchers David Finkelhor and colleagues surveyed children in 2003 and again in 2008 and found that they were being exposed to less violence across the board, including bullying. Across most indices, most deviant youth behavior has also been improving—smoking, drinking, violence, pregnancy, suicide.  It’s impossible to say why for sure, but I believe it’s part of a larger trend and not the result of anti-bullying programs.

 

Bullying was undeniably a problem that needed to be brought out of obscurity, but the issue has arguably now gotten too much attention. Such hype can lead to other problems such as the use of bullying accusations themselves as weapons in peer conflicts and overly harsh “zero tolerance” policies that over punish minor infractions  and may exacerbate the isolation that can lead to bullying in the first place. Now that bullying has been reduced, we need to be careful that it doesn’t distract us from other pressing problems besetting our nation’s schools.

Why R Mendel Epstein's cattle prod forced gittin are invalid

5 Towns Jewish Times by Rabbi Yair Hoffman  Most of our readers have read about the FBI sting against the Rabbis who perform what we can now call “The Cattle Prod Get.” In this column we will not be dealing with the aspects of Chilul Hashem and the breaking of American law. Rather, we will focus on whether these Gets are kosher or not in the first place.

[see Bedatz protests cattle prod divorces]
THE MISHNA

The Mishna in Ksuvos (77a) lists a number of illnesses and professions in which a qualified Beis Din may force the husband to give a Get. The Gemorah both in Ksuvos and Yevamos provides further cases, and the final halacha regarding forced cases has been quantified in Shulchan Aruch Even HaEzer chapter 154.

THE DEBATE

There is a fundamental debate among the Rishonim, however, as to whether the cases discussed in the Talmud are the only such cases where a get may be forced upon the husband or whether they are examples of cases that may include other cases too. We will see that the final disposition of a forced get in most contemporary cases is dependent upon this debate among the Rishonim. The first view is that of the Rambam (Ishus 14:8), who rules that there are other cases where a get may be forced.

The next view is that of the Rosh and the Rashba. The Rosh, Rabbi Asher Ben Yechiel, rules in his responsa (43:3) that one may only force a get in the cases specifically mentioned in the Talmud. The Shulchan Aruch cites the Rosh in 154:5. The Rashba agrees with the Rosh in this respect as well.

MA-OOS ALAI

Most cases of divorces that appear in our times do not deal with the issues of these illnesses and professions. They rather deal with cases where the wife allegedly finds the husband disgusting. This is termed in halacha as “Ma-oos alai” – he is disgusting in my eyes. For these cases, the Rambam rules that a get may be forced, while others disagree.

HOW DOES A FORCED GET WORK?

The essential question behind this debate may lie in how a forced get really works. What is the principle behind the mechanism? The Mishna in Yevamos (112b) clearly states that a man can only divorce his wife of his own will and accord. It cannot be done against his will. Yet we find that the Mishna in Eirachin (21a) states that the way it works in divorces is that we can force him until he says, “I want [to do it].” How are we to understand how this works?

To answer this question, there seem to be four different approaches. [...]

It is pretty clear, however, from the writings of Rav Elyashiv and Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that they do not seem to subscribe to this view.

Indeed, a friend of this author was once present when Rabbi Mendel Epstein’s name came up in front of Rav Elyashiv zt”l, and Rav Elyashiv zt”l said, “Oh him? His Gittin are invalid.” This was said in reference to his forced Gittin. Whether Rav Elyashiv’s ruling applies to each person’s individual case is another story and a competent Posaim should be consulted regarding each case.