Maharal's criticism of dayanim who only hear one side

Bluesteed wrote:

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

I  wanted to bring the following Maharal to the audience's attention, referring to dayanim who hear one side's story ex parte, and then write "conditional" one-sided piskei din based on their testimony, warning that the petitioner falls into "rasha arum" status and the dayan is responsible as his enabler: והנה איזה דיינים שעושים דבר במשפט ובדין ונראה בעיניהם the rest can be found here: Hebrew Books

Mendel Fish 'n beiner added:

Perhaps someone should send a few copies to some so-called "Gedolim", and also paste copies on the walls of their shuls & neighborhoods... For good measure, how about this other one: Maharal in גור ארי' on - Parshas Mishpotim Gur Aryeh thru Gur Aryeh

מהר"ל (ספר נתיבות עולם א - נתיב הדין - פרק ב( והנה איזה דיינים שעושים דבר במשפט ובדין ונראה בעיניהם שהוא דבר קל והוא דבר גדול מאוד מאוד, וזה כי מביא לו אחד מן בעלי דין משפטו ומסדר לו טענות שלו והרב יכתוב ויחתום לו באם כן הדברים, וכל זה חטא ואשמה גדולה מאד כדכתיב שמוע בין אחיכם, ואמרי' בפ' דיני ממונות שמוע בין אחיכם ושפטתם צדק אמר רבי חנינא אזהרה לדיין שלא ישמע דברי בעל דין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ואזהרה לבעל דין שלא יטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו קרי ביה נמי שמע בין אחיכם, רב כהנא מלא תשא לא תשיא נפקא. ואין לומר דטעמא הוי משום שמשקר לו בעל דין וכדמשמע מפירש"י ז"ל, שאפילו היכא דמסדר לפניו דברים של אמת ואינו משקר כיון שמטעים דבריו לדיין נכנסו דבריו בדעתו לזכותו ומחפש לו זכותו, ואף אם ישיב אחר כך חבירו על דבריו כיון שדבריו כבר נכנסו באזני הדיין אינו מסלק דעתו מהם. ומכל שכן כאשר יכתוב פסק דין על פי דברי אחד מן בעלי דינין ואע"ג שיכתוב בא"כ, סוף סוף כיון שבעל דין היה מטעים דבריו לדיין אינו רואה זכות האחר כלל ומחפש תמיד למצא זכותו של זה שהיה מטעים דבריו אליו. ודבר זה אין צריך ראיה, והרי אמרו בסוטה איזה רשע ערום זה המטעים דבריו לדיין קודם שיבא בעל דין חבירו ע"כ. והרי אין לך מטעים דבריו לדיין יותר מזה ואיך יעשה לו דבר זה שיתן לו פסק דין והרי מכשיל את בעל הדין עד שהוא רשע ערום ועובר בלאו והדיין עובר בלאו. ואם היה מקבל ממון בשביל זה, דבר זה באיסור לא תקח שוחד כי איך לא יהיה דעתו נוטה אחריו מאחר שאינו מקבל רק מאחד, דקרנא הוי שקיל אסתרא מזכאי ואסתרא מחייב ודאין להו דינא והיה אגר בטילה דמוכח זה שרי, אבל בכהאי גוונא דשקיל מאחד ולא שייך לומר דהוה אגר בטילה דמוכח דכיון דאינו מקבל משניהם בשוה, ומכל שכן דאגר בטילה אי אפשר שיהיה הרבה אלא דבר מועט, אבל אם לוקח הרבה וכי שייך בזה אגר בטילה דמוכח אין זה רק באיסור לא תקח שוחד, וכדאי הוא דבר זה בלבד להעמיד ירושלים בחורבתה וישראל בגלותם:

;גור אריה שמות כא

כשאויבינו פלילים כו'. דקרא (ר' דברים לב, כט) הכי קאמר "לו חכמו יבינו לאחריתם" שלא מידם היתה זאת מה שהם מושלים בנו, אלא מה' היתה זאת, כי ה' מכרם וה' הסגירם (שם שם ל), שהרי האומות מודים ש"לא כצורנו צורם" (שם שם לא), שאינו שוה צורם לצורינו, ואפילו הכי "אויבינו פלילים" (שם), ולמה היה זה, אלא כי צורם מכרם. ומזה תשמע אם היה צורם שוה חס ושלום לצורינו, ראוי שיהיו אויבינו פלילים, כי בדין כך הוא, אחר שצורם שוה לצורינו, ראוי שיהיו אויבינו פלילים. ואם כן המביא דין בערכאות שלהם מייקר שם עבודה זרה, לומר חס ושלום כי צורם וכו'. וטעם זה ידוע, כי המשפט הוא לאלהים, כדכתיב (דברים א, יז) "כי המשפט לאלהים הוא". ועוד כתיב (ר' מ"ב יז, פו) "ולא ידעו משפט אלהי הארץ", הרי כי המשפט תולה באלהות. ועוד, כי עובדי עבודה זרה אומרים כי המשפטים הוא לאלהות שלהם, כי כל אלהות יש לו משפט, ולעולם הולכין אחר בית דין יפה וחשוב יותר (סנהדרין לב:), נמצא ההולך לפני דין שלהם מייקר שם עבודה זרה להחשיב משפט אלהיהם.

ובקצת ארצות ובקצת קהילות שמים ללענה משפט ראשונה, הקימו להם מציבות למנות להם מקצת ראשים בורים, לא ידעו לשון משפט ומהו הדין, ודרשו המקרא לגנאי לפני הדיוטות דווקא, שלא די שמנו ראשים בורים מכל, אלא נטלו המשפט מיודעי דבר המשפט ונתנו אותו לבורים, עד שהיודעים ותלמידים - בעיניהם רואים עוות משפט ודין גזל ועושק על מקצת ראשים בורים, ואין לאל ידיהם להושיע אף ליתום ולאלמנה. והנה עוברים כל שעה על "לא תטע לך אשירה אצל מזבח ה' אלהיך" (ר' דברים טז, כא), כמו שאמרו חז"ל (סנהדרין ז:) הממנה דיין שאינו הגון כאילו נוטע אשרה אצל מזבח ה'. ואולי רמז עליו בתורה "לא תטע לך אשרה אשר שנא ה' אלהיך" (ר' דברים טז, כא), כי אותיות "אשרה" 'הראש', "אשר שנא ה'" קאי על האשרה, הוא הראש ששנא ה' אלהיך, ואלהיך שונא אותו גם כן. וחכמי הדור אין להם להתאונן על כבוד התורה, כי דיו לעבד שיהיה כמו רבו (ברכות נח:), הרי הם מחללים שם שמים ומייקרים שם עבודה זרה, עבירה גוררת עבירה (אבות פ"ד מ"ב), דורשים 'לפני הדיוטות' דוקא, עד שבאו לדרוש 'לפני ערכאות' דוקא, עד שאין פונים עוד למשפטי התורה. ואין לך דבר אהוב לפני השם יתברך כמו משפט אמת, וכמו שאמרו ז"ל (שבת י.) היושב ודן דין אמת לאמתו נעשה שותף להקב"ה במעשה בראשית. והם משליכים אמת ארצה, עד כי אין משפטי אמת. ונמשך עוד כמעט חס ושלום שאין תורה ודת, כי אין ביד החכמים לגדור פרצות הדור, כי יאמר הראש וחביריו, והדומה לו, אין אתה אב בית דין לנו שאנחנו חייבים לשמוע לך. ויותר קשה לסבול עולם מעול מלכות, שמפני שאין הכבוד נאה לו, והוא אינו נאה לכבוד, [ו] כאשר יחשוב שאין אחד נוהג כבוד בו, ולא ירצה להיות כפוף תחתיו - מכניע אותו ומציר לו ורודף אותו בכל הרדפה, וכן לשפלותו הוא מגרה באנשים חשובים ותלמידי חכמים, שיסבור כי אין החשובים והתלמידי חכמים רוצים להיות נכנעים תחתיו, ולכן הוא דורך על במתי החשובים והנכבדים ביותר להשפיל אותם. אוי ואבוי להם מאותה חרפה ומאותה בושה ומאותה כלימה. אך נתקררה רוחי ונכבה אש יקוד לבי הבוערת, כי דבר בם ראיתי כי אין יוצא מאתם לא נין ולא נכד, עד שהעניות שולטת, [ואין להם] זרע שיהיה לו שם בחכמים ושאר בתלמידים.

ואני אומר כי ירא אלהים יחוש לו ואל יעמוד לפניהם למשפט, והרי אמרו ז"ל (סנהדרין ז:) "לא תעשו אתי אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב" (ר' לעיל כ, כ), זה דיין הבא בשביל כסף וזהב. ולפיכך נאמר "לא תעשו אתי", כי הדיין הוא עם השם יתברך, כדכתיב (תהלים פב, א) "אלהים נצב בעדת אל", ומי שהוא עומד לדין לפני דיין הממונה בעבור עשרו, הרי עושה אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב עם השם יתברך, אשר "נצב בעדת אל בקרב אלהים ישפוט" (שם). ומצוה להקל בכבודם, כמו שכתב בחושן משפט. ובירושלמי בסוף ביכורים (פ"ג ה"ג) רבי מני מקיל לאילין דמתמנין בכסף. רבי אמי קרי עליהן "אלהי כסף". ובאלו שנתמנו בשביל עשרם יש בהם הכל ועל הכל, כי הידים ידי עשו סמכו אותם. אמנם נמצאו גם כן בקצת קהילות נאמני רוח, כונתם לשם שמים, לא להשתורר על הציבור בגאוה, על אלו נאמר העוסקים עם הצבור לשם שמים צדקתם עומדת לעד, ועל האחרים נאמר (ישעיה א, כה - כו) "ואשיבה ידי עליך ואצרוף כבור סיגיך ואסירה כל בדיליך ואשיבה שופטיך כבראשונה
":

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn

As a follow up to the chilling Maharal you shared with your readers, I would also like to point out the following Peirush HaGR"A on Esther 1:7, in the "al derech remez" portion on the left. There, the Vilna Gaon writes regarding the famous Gemara in Sotah that in the days leading to Mashiach there will be an abundance of chutzpa, " בעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגי," because the dayanim appointed will be corrupt and "einam mehuganim," therefore "nearim pney zekeynim yalbinu," the young will embarass and challenge the elders-- and the Vilna Gaon concludes that chutzpah will be so prevalent that it will exist even in the elders, "in all of them including the gedoley hador."

דבעקבות משיחא חוצפא יסגי, והענין של החוצפא ההיא כי מעמידין דיין ופרנס שאינו הגון, ואמרו (סנהדרין ז׳) כל המעמיד דיין שאינו הגון כאילו נוטע אשירה כו׳, ובירושלמי קראם אלהי כסף ואלהי זהב (ע״ש במהרש״א) ולכך נערים פני זקנים ילבינו, אבל זקנים יעמדו מפני נערים מי הכריחן לכך, אלא שגברה החוצפא והוא אף בזקנים ובכולם גם בגדולי הדור.״

Hebrew Books

Do you have to be Jewish to be a feminist?

Daily Texan    A disproportionately high number of Jewish women influenced the second wave of feminism in the 1960s and 1970s, according to Daniel Horowitz, an American studies professor from Smith College. [Horowitz, D. (1996). Rethinking Betty Friedan and The Feminine Mystique: Labor union radicalism and feminism in cold war America. American Quarterly, 48(1), 1-42. PDF here.]

“There aren’t many prominent feminist writers of note in that period who weren’t Jewish,” Horowitz said. [...]

According to Horowitz, Friedan did not write about Jewish culture in “The Feminine Mystique,” but instead focused the book on the struggle of middle class white women. Horowitz listed several other Jewish women who were a part of the feminist movement but never wrote about American Jews.

“They come out of a cosmopolitan universalist tradition in which the notion of womanhood or protestor is more important than the notion of Jewishness,” Horowitz said.

Kerry, Halachic Israel, and Safety by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5 Towns Jewish Times   In the past few months, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry has occupied entire floors of hotels in Jerusalem. In early March, Mr Kerry is expected to present a copy of the so-called framework agreement to Benjamin Netanyahu when the Israeli prime minister visits Washington to both visit President Barack Obama and address the AIPAC conference of AIPAC.

The document will propose a peace deal along pre-1967 borders but with land swaps that take account of “demographic changes” on the ground. The document will attempt to influence the Netanyahu government to give up many different areas of Eretz Yisrael. It is therefore be an opportune time to review the halachos of what constitutes Eretz Yisrael. It must be stressed that this discussion does not chalilah condone the giving up of parts of Israel. It is merely a discussion of the status of its various parts.

TWO TYPES OF LAND

Although the verse in Bereishis (17:8) tells us that Hashem told Avraham, “And I shall give you and your descendants after you…the entire Land of Canaan as an inheritance forever,” one can divide up Eretz Yisrael into two different types of land:

A. Lands that were captured by our ancestors who arose out of Egypt but were not recaptured by our ancestors who rose out of Babylonia during the time of Ezra; and

B. Lands that were also recaptured by our ancestors who rose out of Babylonia.

For our purposes, we will heretofore designate these two areas as “area A” and “area B.” [...]

Zephaniah & Manny Waks: Paying the price for speaking against abuse

The Australian  See also Complexity of child abuse: Manny Wak's brother TO outsiders, Zephaniah Waks blends in with other bearded orthodox Jewish men dressed in black on the footpaths of the East St Kilda neighbourhood where he has dwelt for almost three decades. 

 

But to insiders who live, work, gossip and pray here, his presence reminds them of things they’d rather forget. He is a stone in their shoe: uncomfortable, irritating, difficult to extract. For the past two years he has been singled out for the kind of shunning that others not as stubborn or as flinty or as sure of their stand would sooner flee than endure.

He prays on the Sabbath. He walks to the synagogue. He studies the Torah. He observes the rituals of the Chabad. Why has this solid pillar of his community become persona non grata? Waks believes his so-called sin was supporting his eldest son Manny, 37, who went to the media in July 2011 with allegations he was sexually abused as a teenager at the Yeshivah Centre, where school and synagogue squat in the heartland of this tight-knit group of worshippers.

The fears that choke child-abuse victims in every community cast an even darker shadow in orthodox circles, where dirty laundry is typically dealt with in-house. The archaic concept of Mesirah - the prohibition on reporting another Jew’s wrongdoing to non-Jewish authorities - still exerts a powerful hold. Zephaniah began to feel a bristling towards him from the first Sabbath after his son’s disclosures. That Saturday in the synagogue the most senior spiritual leader, Rabbi Zvi Telsner, delivered a stern sermon from the pulpit. “Who gave you permission to talk to anyone? Which rabbi gave you permission?” he thundered, without mentioning any names. Zephaniah and his wife Chaya walked out in a spontaneous protest with six others. Rabbi Telsner insists his remarks were not directed at any individual. “It’s like calling someone fat,” he tells me. “If you think you’re fat that’s up to you.” He had dismissed as “absolute rubbish” any suggestion he sought to discourage witnesses from stepping forward.

Slowly and surely, during the weeks and months that followed, the Waks began to detect slights and snubs in personal and religious forums, making life increasingly fraught. Zephaniah has been denied religious blessings routinely dispensed to others. Men who have accompanied him to religious studies for years now cut him dead. Intimate friends no longer share their table or invite him to family celebrations. Whispering campaigns besmirch him as a “dobber” or “moser” and anonymous bloggers have defamed him.

Never mind the thousands outside the orthodox community who cheer his son’s courage, their gratitude warming him too. These sentiments only serve to make the silences that engulf him even frostier. “If you get ostracised so that you have to leave your community, your whole world disappears,” says Zephaniah, 63, throwing up his hands. “Where are you going to go?” The Waks’ modest family home sits across the street from the Yeshivah Centre’s sprawl of brick buildings fortified by high metal fences and security patrols. [...]

Proposal for new prenuptial agreement by Rabbi Shalom Spira

Recently received the following letter and proposal for a new prenuptial agreement from Rabbi Shalom Spira with permission to post it here for evaluation by readers. This does not constitute an endorsement. update Click link for background information

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

Be-chasdei Ha-Kadosh Barukh Hu, Yishtabach Shemo

Shalom Aleikhem Ha-Rav Ha-Ga'on Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn, shlit"a, Yevarekh Ha-Shem Cheilo, ve-Yezakenu be-Me'or Torato,

I would like to thank the Rav for the marvelous insights on hilkhot gittin that the Rav has publicized over the past few years, insights that have raised the level of Torah appreciation and harmony within Klal Yisrael, thus constituting a sparkling Kiddush Ha-Shem. The merit of the public will stand to the eternal credit of the Rav.

I have recently completed (Barukh Ha-Shem) a prenuptial agreement proposal which I believe is valid according to the consensus of poskim, and which can potentially avert all future agunah situations for ladies who are not yet married. [I cannot help the ladies who are already married; they are trapped, as the Retzono shel Makom (Yishtabach Shemo) demands, and as explained by the Rav's brother Ha-Rav Ha-Ga'on R. Dovid Eidensohn, shlit"a, at http://www.scribd.com/doc/202377527/Rabbi-Safran-Broken-Marriage-Must-Divorce-rebuttal ) Since the words of the Rav's brother were inspiration in the composition of my essay, I credit him (among others) on the final page of my essay, and I am presently sending the link of my essay to the Rav for him to enjoy: 

   Prenuptial Agreements by Rabbi Shalom Spira

Complexity of child abuse: Manny Wak's brother's version

update: posted the entire Facebook article
The following appeared on the  Facebook page of Avi Yemini (Manny Waks brother) and it illustrates the complexity of ascertaining the truth.  I am not taking sides. There is obviously a lot that has gone in the family. I have discussed the Facebook posting with his father Zephaniah Waks - with whom I have a good relationship. He disagrees strongly with many of the statements his son has made but he said that it will not serve any useful purpose to publicly reply and discuss the accusations. See - Paying the price for speaking out against abuse

Avi Yemini (Manny Waks brother) writes: 

Enough, no more silence.

This is my personal opinion about the Waks family’s compromised involvement in the child sexual abuse campaign, led by my brother Manny Waks and backed by my father Zephaniah Waks. I am sharing it here in a facebook post in response to the constant attempts to silence me whenever I express an opinion which does not promote or support Manny or the Waks family. Just because somebody is fighting a worthy cause, does not give them free reign to say and do whatever they want while silencing anyone who doesn’t support them. Just because I was born in the Waks family, doesn’t mean I am going to keep pretending what a big happy family we are. < I feel extremely motivated and free to share it now as my father boycotted my wedding and my mother cynically cancelled my Shabbat Chatan behind my back because I refused to apologize for expressing an opinion which does not support Manny. It’s sad to me that it took them attempting to ruin our simcha with their toxic energy to realize this, but it is clear to me now that their sudden and random request to reconcile with us (after years of estrangement) nearly 18 months ago, was purely motivated by a fear of what I would say publicly about their involvement with the campaign against child sexual abuse. 

This is just the first thing I have to get off my chest. Enough, no more silence. I supported Manny in the beginning when he went public about being sexually abused, because I felt strongly that someone going public with something as serious as sexual abuse would need as much support as he could get and I obviously believe in people speaking out about what they’ve experienced in an attempt to help others. I still absolutely support the cause itself, of course. However over the past year and a half I have found it very difficult to continue to support the path Manny is taking in regards to campaigning against child sexual abuse.

This is not and has never been acceptable to my parents. All my life my family has operated on a “you’re either with us or you are against us” approach. I experienced this as a young teen when I didn’t want to be religious. In our family that was not acceptable and myself and many of my brothers were given ultimatums that we had to either tow the line (ie. Be ultra orthodox Lubavitch) or get out. I spent my teenage years in foster care, on the street, in friend’s homes, addicted to heroin, drugs and generally wasting my life until I finally got myself into rehab and joined the army. I spoke of this experience in May 2012 at Mizrachi when I was asked to give a speech about my upbringing and the role it played in turning me away from the religion, as the topic for the evening was “Off the Derech”.

I believe it was this speech which motivated my parents to fake reconciliation with me. Since then, it’s been increasingly clear that the only thing that matters to them is keeping me from expressing my opinions about Manny.

Over the past 18 months my relationship with my parents has been filled with demands to apologize to Manny and as a result we were banned from coming to their house if Manny was going to be there because he refused to be in the same room as us e.g. last Pesach we were meant to go for the first night seder and got told at the last minute not to come because Manny was going. It has been filled with constant obsessive discussion about which community member my father says is accused of child abuse, while sitting at the Shabbat table. My father even asked me about hiring bodyguards so that he could continue to go to shul and act like he felt scared to go there without security.

When my parents recently announced their move to Israel, I was accused of forwarding the email onto someone they didn’t want reading it (I still don’t know which sibling forwarded it) and later discovered it was because it contradicted their big, two page spread in the newspaper that came out that weekend, claiming, among other things, to have been ex-communicated when really, it was all financial and something they have been planning to do for years – my mother told me how her plan was always to move as soon as my youngest sister finished school, which she did in 2013.

When I responded to my younger brother’s brave facebook post condemning the way Manny leaked (he calls it “facilitated” in his blog post) a prominent rabbi’s name to the media in connection to allegations of child sexual abuse with this comment:

“Good on you for saying what many of us are thinking. It must have taken alot of courage to write it, and I for one really appreciate it.

I have thought for a while now that the direction this campaign has gone is disgraceful. The Glick thing just seems to be the final episode in a very sad story.

The saddest thing is that future victims have had their stories hijacked by self serving people and their so called organisations.”

This was enough for my father to boycott my wedding and what pisses me off is not that he didn’t come, but that a father could use their own son’s simcha to try to manipulate them into supporting their dodgy campaign.

As much as that speech scared them into “keeping their enemies close” they’ve obviously forgotten all the other things I know and they’ve obviously not thought their tactics through very carefully. The big issue I have with my father’s involvement in this campaign against child sexual abuse, is that ours was a home full of physical child abuse. My father used to beat all the boys with a belt as punishment. I remember lining up one day to receive the belt after a whole group of us (there are 11 boys in the family) were caught climbing on the mikveh roof. I was the smallest in that group and the last in line, it was terrifying watching my older brothers scream while wondering what would happen to me. I was also the one he eventually broke the belt on and then he stopped using it but there has always been a culture of intimidation and manipulation - emotional, psychological, mental and physical, in our home.

I think it’s disgusting that someone who clearly has his own violent tendencies can go around condemning other abusers – all child abuse ought to be brought to light and the perpetrators brought to justice, even if it isn’t sexual. I might be the only one from the family who will ever have the guts to say it out loud, but no matter how they present themselves in the documentary about the family, Zephaniah isn’t someone whose judgement of others on the matter of protecting children from abuse is one to trust.

I think that initially his intentions were good - when the first newspaper spread was sprung on him in 2011 by Manny, he probably wanted to support my brother out of the terrible guilt he must have felt over not taking proper responsibility when not one, but THREE of my brothers were sexually abused and he did not go to the police. In fact, in a conversation we had, he justified it, explaining that it was the climate at the time (sounding very similar to the explanations from Yeshivah itself), I didn’t understand what it was like for him, there was no way he could report it and besides where would he send the children, it was the only Chabad school in Melbourne. Justifications aside – he was one of the ones who put pressure on the school to send the perpetrator away, so instead of condemning everyone else I think he should be apologizing himself.

I think he raised us in an environment where we learnt some pretty messed up messages. Some of the boys got molested at school, most turned to drugs to some degree and at some point, many got kicked out of home and all were vulnerable as a result of his shocking parenting tactics. His pursuit of sex offenders now is just a misguided attempt to deflect blame away from himself.

Manny is far too damaged himself to be a stable leader, especially not for victims of abuse. I think it’s disturbing that when confronted by one of our sisters, Manny denied that anyone was ever hit in our home. While he joked about being “touched” in personal conversations between us before portraying himself as a victim became his profession, I don’t think that either making light of sexual abuse OR turning it into a sensationalist media campaign is the right thing to do.

My mother literally said to me just months ago “If you don’t have something to say that promotes or supports Manny, don’t say it at all. Better to be quiet”. I refuse to do that about such an important issue. I refuse to just join the crowd in congratulating and thanking him when I have serious doubts about his motives and think that more people should be thinking more deeply about his motives and the ethics of his conduct. He has been after a leadership position for his entire life and starting Tzedek finally gave him that position. Just because they are one of the only Jewish (not the first) organizations to offer support to victims, doesn’t mean they should be blindly supported without being held to the same standards of accountability and transparency that anyone who is paid to lead an organization should be held to.

This is my opinion. I wont be silent about it.

From now on, whenever anyone congratulates me on how wonderful my parents are, because they saw the doco, or they had a Shabbat meal with them, or they are simply impressed by how many children they brought into the world, instead of smiling awkwardly I will tell them my truth about what I experienced in their home.

From now on whenever anyone congratulates me on how fantastic Manny is, I will continue to express my concerns that his motives aren’t as pure as he would have us believe and to express my opinion that he is not the right sort of person to lead this cause.

From now on, whenever anyone wants to use “enough, no more silence!” as their tagline, they’re going to remember that it also applies to them and they can no longer bully their critics into keeping their mouths shut.

I’m sharing this opinion because the issue of child abuse is too important to blindly allow, as a community, any self-serving individual to hi-jack the stories of future victims to suit themselves. I don’t gain anything from writing this, I wont ever gain a cent from talking about child abuse, I just have the satisfaction that those who tried to silence me did not succeed in preventing me from speaking my truth and that anyone who reads this has an opportunity to see things from my perspective and use it to make up their own minds.

If you don’t like the fact that I posted this – too bad, this is my facebook wall, this is my opinion and you don’t have to read it.

Khula:Wife initiated divorce option for Muslims

Daily News Egypt   [ See also The Hindu]

Khula is wife-initiated divorce under Islamic law, enshrined in Egyptian law by article 20 for law 1/2000 in the family statues laws. To receive khula, a woman must renounce any financial compensation and return her dowry. It can leave many women in financial dire straits, but given divorce through a civil court can take over seven years, it is the only option for many who are severely abused and just need to get out.

Control, drug addiction, infidelity, mistreatment of children, unchecked mental disorders, physical violence, desertion, and lack of affection or attention are some of the reasons given for filing for divorce.

However, women filing for khula in Egypt predominantly have only one reason: abuse, often in connection with drug abuse and poverty. Isis Mahmoud, head of the technical secretariat department of the standing committees at the National Council for Women (NCW), said most women only file for khula if compelled.“We all thought that the issuance of khula law would result in khula suits raining all over the Family Court, but that was not the case”, he said. If a woman files a khula suit, it clearly indicates that an unbearable situation is forcing her to do so.

Khula is expensive and lawyers’ fees are out of the reach of many women in need of divorce. Many organizations and associations provide free-of-charge advocacy services, such as the ADEW and NCW. John Shenouda, an information systems official at the Ombudsman office at NCW, said the council received 258 khula complaints from 2011 to 2012.[...]

Ibrahim said that filing a standard divorce lawsuit procedure takes years until a final ruling is announced. From the initial litigation proceedings of filing the lawsuit, it can take up to two years before the court announces a ruling. If the judge’s ruling is in favour of divorce, the opponent may appeal, which can take another two years for the appeal to be announced.[...]

The legal procedures for khula, in contrast, take up to six months, or nine months if the couple has children. A woman willing to file a khula case needs to file for mediation first. The mediation offices, located at the Family Court, attempt to reconcile the married couple before referring the case to the court. The office assigns a psychological, social and a legal specialist to conduct these mediation sessions. [...]

Rav Herschel Schacter: Women and Tefillin - Objections

Just received the following from a reliable source.

   Rav Herschel Schacter Women andTefillin 

Weiss Dodelson: Rav Shlomo Miller's letter to Rav Malkiel Kotler retracting his support for Dodelson

In the campaign against the Weiss and Feinstein family conducted by the Dodelson's and their allies - there were other victims. One of them was Rav Shlomo Miller who feels that Clall Yisroel was harmed by the Dodelson campaign. The following letter written by Rav Shlomo Miller was sent to me by a talmid of one of his major talmidim for publication to make the public aware of Rav Miller's strong feelings against the Dodelson's campaign which he describes as a “milchemes hadas.” I am not sure the Weiss's are aware of this letter.

The background to this letter is that during the last summer while Rabbi Greenwald was in the midst of his efforts to mediate a settlement, Rav Malkiel Kotler pressured Rav Shlomo Miller for a letter stating that there is a siruv, and a letter from major rabbonim demanding that R. Avrohom Meir Weiss give a Get. The letter that Rav Malkiel Kotler received from Rav Shlomo Miller, solely on the basis of Rav Kotler's presentation of facts, was used in turn to convince a number of Lakewood poskim to sign a letter against R. Avrohom Meir. On January 24, 2014, after an independent investigation of the facts, Rav Shlomo Miller faxed this letter of public retraction of support to a talmid to hand deliver to Rav Malkiel Kotler.

The letter was sent to me -  by a talmid of a major talmid of Rav Miller who approved its publication - with the following additional information. This letter should be read together with that of Rav Kaminetsky

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

The attached letter by Rav Shlomo Miller was written and delivered to R’ Malkiel Kotler over a week before the Weiss-Dodelson get was issued.

I discussed the background of the letter with my Rebbi, who is a talmid of Rav Shlomo, and he explained the following:

In the letter, Rav Miller makes it clear that he had initially supported the Dodelson’s based on the signatures on the “Kol Korei.” However, after doing his own investigation into the history of the case and reviewing the documentation, he withdrew his support. In fact, he told numerous people who spoke with him that they may not help or support the Dodelsons, and that – this is a direct quote – “She [Gital] is a rodef.”

This letter followed a week or so after Rav Miller spoke with R’ Malkiel and explained to him that the public efforts being undertaken to promote his cousin’s cause were no less than a “milchemes hadas.”

 My Rebbi thinks that people need to understand that this letter was not written by Rav Miller on the spur of the moment, but after careful consideration.

More Men in Prime Working Ages Don't Have Jobs

Wall Street Journal   Mark Riley was 53 years old when he lost a job as a grant writer for an Arkansas community college. "I was stunned," he said. "It happened on my daughter's 11th birthday." His boss blamed state budget cuts.

That was almost three years ago and he still hasn't found steady work. Mr. Riley, whose unemployment benefits ran out 14 months ago, says his long and fruitless search is proof employers won't hire men out of work too long.

"We're poor, but we're not broke," Mr. Riley said. "We still have property. We have cars. We have some assets, we just can't liquidate them." 

Mr. Riley's frustration is widely shared. More than one in six men ages 25 to 54, prime working years, don't have jobs—a total of 10.4 million. Some are looking for jobs; many aren't. Some had jobs that went overseas or were lost to technology. Some refuse to uproot for work because they are tied down by family needs or tethered to homes worth less than the mortgage. Some rely on government benefits. Others depend on working spouses.

Having so many men out of work is partly a symptom of a U.S. economy slow to recover from the worst recession in 75 years. It is also a chronic condition that shows how technology and globalization are transforming jobs faster than many workers can adapt, economists say.

The trend has been building for decades, according to government data. In the early 1970s, just 6% of American men ages 25 to 54 were without jobs. By late 2007, it was 13%. In 2009, during the worst of the recession, nearly 20% didn't have jobs. [...]

Schlesinger twins: British Parliament 14th January 2014 – Highlights and Discussion

Help Beth  Posted on February 6, 2014 by Beth

 

On the 14th January 2014, British MPs sat in the House of Commons to discuss the custody case of the Schlesinger Twins in Vienna. Multiple MPs criticised the way the Austrian Courts have handled proceedings and the rulings made by various judges including Judge Susanne Göttlicher who was the judge in the lower court awarding the father 100% custody.

MPs openly called the courts “kafkaesque” whilst another MP claimed “corruption” was the driver behind the judge’s decisions.

There were also questions raised about the involvement of high court judge Konstanze Thau, who has no legal standing in this case, yet was in regular communication with Judge Susanne Göttlicher.

The clip below shows the main points raised during the debate although the full 40 minute film is included at the bottom of this page.

Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky's letter to the Dodelsons saying his previous letter was not criticizing them

The most recent letter addressed to the Dodleson family of erev rosh chodesh Shevat Tav Shin Ayin "daleth says that ,

... I would like to convey to you in a clear language that, I am not coming to condemn you on what you did along the whole time of this painful saga. I am aware that you did get help and support for what you have done along that time, myself amongst them. It is clear that you have done what you did according to Daas Torah...

Which is a clarification of this letter  Daas Torah Blog posting 
Update: See letter from Rav Shlomo Miller

In the letter addressed at the prior date of E.S. Chanuka of Nov-19-'13,

... it was brought to my attention that the public smear campaign against the Weiss family continues with my support. It is not supported by me and the campaign should cease and desist. It is unacceptable. R' S.K.

N Y Post:" Victory! Orthodox Jewish woman finally gets her divorce"

NY Post     An Orthodox Jewish woman who has been fighting for a religious divorce from her husband has finally gotten her wish.

Gital Dodelson, 25, has been granted a “get” by her ex-husband, Avrohom Meir Weiss.

Her publicist, Shira Dicker, said Wednesday that she got the surprise news from Dodelson’s mom, Saki.

“She calls, giggling, ‘Gital has her get,’ ” Dicker told The Post. 

The Post broke the story of Dodelson’s divorce nightmare three months ago.[...]

Dodelson recalled her ex-husband’s motive in not granting her a legal Jewish divorce: “On my last mission to ask for a get, a month ago, Avrohom said, ‘I can’t give you a get — how else would I control you?’ I think that’s the key to it all. He insists the marriage isn’t over until he says it’s over,” she told The Post in November.

After The Post report, Dodelson got a wave of public support.

The Facebook group “Free Gital: Tell Avrohom Meir Weiss to Give His Wife a ‘Get’ ” was created and grew to 14,000 supporters worldwide.

Dicker could not say Wednesday why Weiss had changed his mind and now granted the religious divorce.

The Weiss family declined to comment.

Three days after The Post story first appeared, the father and uncle of her estranged husband, Rabbi Yosaif Asher Weiss and Rabbi Yisroel Weiss, were forced to resign from their lofty editor positions at Jewish publisher, ArtScroll, under intense pressure from the outraged Jewish community.

The Weiss family is part of an esteemed rabbinic family; Avrohom Meir Weiss’s great-grandfather was the great Talmudic scholar Moshe Feinstein, who ironically was a vocal champion of the rights of Jewish women to divorce.

“The world became consumed after the NY Post story,” says Dicker. “The Post did this because of her face — how amazingly human and relatable it is. It could have been just another story, but Gital became everybody’s sister, daughter and friend,” she says, adding, “It was a grassroots thing; community opinion.”

Now, Saki Dodelson has vowed to start a nonprofit helping other women to win freedom from their recalcitrant husbands. “The family isn’t just skipping into the sunset,” Dicker says. “There’s a real sense of responsibility here.”

Can a get be obtained by ostracizing the husband?

In view of the fact that Shira Dicker - Dodelson's PR consultant - claims that Gital obtained the Get  only after she conducted a massive media attack on R' A. M. Weiss. One whose purpose was to humiliate him and his family and cause his father and uncle to lose their jobs and to close down Rav Reuven Feinstein's yeshiva  as well as to change the accepted halacha etc etc. This was done in concert with a massive arm twisting campaign against many rabbis conducted by Rav Malkiel Kotler resulting in the infamous Kol Koreh which made a mockery of halacha and showed the willingness of these rabbis to dance and jump to an inappropriate tune [see the recent letter from Rav Shlomo Miller]. It is appropriate to review the halacha and to note that if that in fact this campaign were the cause of R A.M. Weissw giving the Get - then it is posul as a Get Me'usa.

However I belief contrary to Dicker that the Get is valid because R' A. M. Weiss refused giving the Get under these pressures and only gave it after negotiating a settlement under the direction and mediation of Rabbi Ronny Greenwald and Rabbi Sholom Kaminetsky.

Guest post by Rabbi Dovid E. Eidensohn

May a GET be Coerced with Passive Ostracizing?

The laws of coercing a GET are in Even Hoezer 154. Paragraph 21 tells us that the Talmud sometimes permits a coercion of a GET with a beating or severe pressure such as putting  the husband in Nidui. Sometimes this is too strong a coercion and beatings and Nidui are forbidden, but we may tell the husband that he is a wicked person. The Talmud has ordered him to divorce his wife and he refuses. This applies to any case where the Talmud demands a GET but does not explicitly permit beatings or Nidui. There are other cases where the Talmud has not commanded the husband to divorce with a GET. In such circumstances, there is no permission for any type of coercion.

Briefly, as we will show, there are three categories of husbands in our question about ostracizing to force a GET. Those husbands who are commanded by the Talmud to give a GET or face a beating may be coerced to give a GET with passive ostracizing. Even active ostracizing is probably permitted because the Beth Din is permitted to beat the husband. The second level of husband who refuses to give a GET is when the Talmud commands the husband to give his wife a GET, but the Talmud does not say to beat him or apply the highest level of coercion. Such a person may not be coerced with humiliation, physical abuse, or Nidui. But he may be told, “You are a wicked person because the Talmud commands  you to give your wife a GET and you refuse it.” That is, we may tell the husband this but public humiliations such as a crowd of people shouting at him about this is forbidden because humiliation is a very serious kind of coercion and permitted only when beatings are permitted.

The third level is when the wife demands a GET because “my husband repels me” and I can’t remain in marriage with him. In such a case no coercion at all is permitted see EH 77 2;3 and all of the commentators there besides the Shulchan Aruch and Ramo who say “If the husband wants he can divorce and if he does not want he does not give a GET.” This is from the Rashbo teshuva VII:414 and accepted by the Radvaz, Beis Yosef EH 154 and Chazon Ish. The Gro #5 says that nobody permits coercion in MOUS OLEI “my husband repels me.” Meaning, nobody from the recent generations of the Shulchan Aruch, etc. In such a case nobody mentions any kind of coercion that is permitted. And nobody mentions ostracizing of Rabbeinu Tam. This is only mentioned by the Ramo in the laws of Gittin as it applies to somebody who is commanded by the Talmud to divorce, not by somebody who is free not to divorce.

Those who seek excuses to coerce husbands where the Shulchan Aruch says not to coerce him, often refer to Rabbeinu Tam and his permission to ostracize a husband in a passive manner. We want therefore to deal with the common type of demand of the wife for a GET, when she says MOUS OLEI, my husband repels me. In such a case coercion is forbidden, but coercion is usually active coercion. But is it forbidden to coerce passively by ostracizing the husband?

The laws of a woman demanding a GET when we do not coerce the husband to divorce her are dealt with not in the laws of Gittin in the above chapter 154, but in another chapter and another section of Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer about the laws of KESUBOSE or issues among married people. See EH 77 paragraph 2,3. Both the Ashkenazi and the Sefardic commentator do not permit coercion if the woman claims my husband repels me or MOUS OLEI. If so, even the Ramo who permits ostracizing in the Laws of Gittin only permits it in the case where the Talmud demands a GET. But, in the vast majority of cases, surely MOUS OLEI, it is forbidden to ostracize the husband to coerce a GET even with passive ostracizing.

The Vilna Gaon says furthermore in his commentatory to the above section of Laws of Gittin, that we only permit coercion to divorce with passive ostracizing when the husband can leave the city and be safe. But if a general ostracizing is proclaimed in every city, and the husband cannot leave his city and be safe, it is forbidden.

The Shach in Gevuras Anoshim says that when the husband cannot function like a man, and the Talmud commands a GET, we do not beat him or make  NIDUI but we may ostracize him in a passive manner, but only if he can escape the ostracizing by going to another place. However, afterwards, the Shach says that because some disagree with this and forbid any kind of ostracizing because it is a very powerful coercion, it may invalidate the GET and we should not do it at all, unless the Talmud clearly states that a person may be beaten.

Thus, the Shach and the Vilna Gaon both forbid ostracizing in a passive manner if the husband cannot leave his city and go somewhere else. Today, where communication and organized Aguna organizations reach a husband outside his original city, the Shach and Vilna Gaon would forbid coercion with ostracizing even when the husband is commanded to give a GET by the Talmud. But to coerce in MOUS OLEI is surely forbidden by the Ramo, the Vilna Gaon and the Shach, who forbids it completely.

Thus nobody permits ostracizing a husband if he does not divorce when the wife claims “he repels me.” And if the husband has a condition whereby he cannot be a husband and the Talmud commands him to divorce his wife, the Shach and Chazon Ish forbid ostracizing in a passive manner to force him to divorce. But if the Talmud does not command the husband to divorce, such as when the wife claims “he repels me, “ nobody permits coercion, and certainly not such a strong coercion as being publicly ostracized until he divorces his wife.

If the husband is commanded to divorce by the Talmud as when he has problems fulfilling the marriage, the Ramo permits passive ostracizing, but the Gro and Shach insist that this is only true if the husband can escape the ostracizing by going to a different city. The Shach in Gevuras Anoshim says that a major authority says that it was unheard of to coerce with Rabbeinu Tam’s ostracizing, and the Shach rules that we should not use it today even if the husband is commanded by the Talmud to give a GET, unless the Talmud suggests beating the husband.

Therefore, the habit of some people to invent leniencies to coerce by seizing upon Rabbeinu Tam and ostracizing are wrong because of the great authorities who forbid it even when the Talmud commands a GET and certainly ostracizing is forbidden with MOUS OLEI when the Talmud does not command a GET.