10 Reasons Why Handheld Devices Should Be Banned for Children Under the Age of 12

Huffington Post   The American Academy of Pediatrics and the Canadian Society of Pediatrics state infants aged 0-2 years should not have any exposure to technology, 3-5 years be restricted to one hour per day, and 6-18 years restricted to 2 hours per day (AAP 2001/13, CPS 2010). Children and youth use 4-5 times the recommended amount of technology, with serious and often life threatening consequences (Kaiser Foundation 2010, Active Healthy Kids Canada 2012). Handheld devices (cell phones, tablets, electronic games) have dramatically increased the accessibility and usage of technology, especially by very young children (Common Sense Media, 2013). As a pediatric occupational therapist, I'm calling on parents, teachers and governments to ban the use of all handheld devices for children under the age of 12 years. Following are 10 research-based reasons for this ban. Please visit zonein.ca to view the Zone'in Fact Sheet for referenced research. 

1. Rapid brain growth
Between 0 and 2 years, infant's brains triple in size, and continue in a state of rapid development to 21 years of age (Christakis 2011). Early brain development is determined by environmental stimuli, or lack thereof. Stimulation to a developing brain caused by overexposure to technologies (cell phones, internet, iPads, TV), has been shown to be associated with executive functioning and attention deficit, cognitive delays, impaired learning, increased impulsivity and decreased ability to self-regulate, e.g. tantrums (Small 2008, Pagini 2010). 

2. Delayed Development
Technology use restricts movement, which can result in delayed development. One in three children now enter school developmentally delayed, negatively impacting literacy and academic achievement (HELP EDI Maps 2013). Movement enhances attention and learning ability (Ratey 2008). Use of technology under the age of 12 years is detrimental to child development and learning (Rowan 2010). [...]

After Seeing His Family Crumble, Vindicated Whistle-Blower Has Little to Smile About

NY Times  [...] Five years ago, Mr. Kellner, a 52-year-old Hasidic Jew, chose to step off a cultural cliff. He spoke out about the sexual abuse of his 16-year-old son by a prominent Hasidic cantor. And he helped a police detective ferret out other victims of this cantor, whose connections ran to the most powerful reaches of the Satmar community.

Retribution became daily fare for Mr. Kellner. His rabbi denounced him as a traitor. Yeshivas locked out his sons. He pawned his silverware.

Then the former Brooklyn district attorney, Charles J. Hynes, who had proved a most considerate ally of Hasidic leaders, drove a stake into Mr. Kellner’s heart. After gaining a conviction of the cantor, Baruch Lebovits, Brooklyn prosecutors turned around and indicted Mr. Kellner. Basing their case on the questionable testimony of a prominent Satmar supporter of the cantor, they accused Mr. Kellner of trying to shake down Mr. Lebovits.

Mr. Kellner faced decades in prison. He posted bail, only to watch as Mr. Lebovits’s lawyers used his indictment and other technicalities to persuade a state appeals court to overturn the cantor’s conviction. 

“My father was an Auschwitz survivor; right away he got sick,” Mr. Kellner recalls. “Within six months, he died. Then my mother had a devastating stroke.”

He pauses, like a sprinter catching his breath. “How do I tell my daddy, ‘I was found not guilty, it was just a libel, just bad people’?” he said. “The government needs to understand it did a pretty good job of killing me.”[...]

Still, an image that remains from Friday was that of a Hasidic father standing in court, rocking slightly, as an assistant district attorney described wildly inconsistent statements and witnesses who lacked any shred of credibility. 

The people, the prosecutor said at last, “do not have a credible case.”[...]

The Trial That Unleashed Hysteria & False Accusations Over Child Abuse

NY Times   Early in the 19th century, two unmarried women who ran a school for girls in Edinburgh found themselves accused by a student of being lesbians. The charge, quite grave in that era, was baseless, and in time the women won a libel suit. But not before they had lost everything, including their school. If this story rings a bell, it may be because Lillian Hellman used it as a starting point for “The Children’s Hour,” her 1934 play about a couple of schoolteachers whose lives similarly come unraveled after a malicious student falsely accuses them of lesbianism.

It has long been said, in varying language, that a lie travels halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on. You do not have to reach back 200 years to Scotland to find enduring wisdom in that adage. You need return only to the 1980s and to the subject of this week’s Retro Report documentary video, part of a series re-examining news stories from the past. This week’s subject is the notorious McMartin Preschool abuse trial.

Starting in 1983, with accusations from a mother whose mental instability later became an issue in the case, the operators of a day care center near Los Angeles were charged with raping and sodomizing dozens of small children. The trial dragged on for years, one of the longest and costliest in American history. In the end, as with the Scottish women, lives were undone. But no one was ever convicted of a single act of wrongdoing. Indeed, some of the early allegations were so fantastic as to make many people wonder later how anyone could have believed them in the first place. Really now, teachers chopped up animals, clubbed a horse to death with a baseball bat, sacrificed a baby in a church and made children drink the blood, dressed up as witches and flew in the air — and all this had been going on unnoticed for a good long while until a disturbed mother spoke up?

Still, McMartin unleashed nationwide hysteria about child abuse and Satanism in schools. One report after another told of horrific practices, with the Devil often literally in the details.

Criminal cases of dubious provenance abounded. One that received great attention involved Margaret Kelly Michaels, convicted in 1988 of rampant sexual abuse at the Wee Care Day Nursery in Maplewood, N.J., where children said she had sexually abused them with knives, spoons and forks, and had urinated in their mouths. None showed signs of injury. Six years later, Ms. Michaels’s conviction was overturned. Another prominent case from those days involved charges of rape and sodomy brought against the operators of the Little Rascals Day Care Center in Edenton, N.C. As with McMartin, there were bizarre allegations early on about babies being murdered and children thrown in with sharks. Though defendants were found guilty, their convictions were later overturned and charges were dropped.[...]

Mamzerim - THE WOLMARK and EPSTEIN ISSUE

anonymous Guest Post       update NY Times

Unfortunately the ostrich syndrome has taken hold of the Klall and everyone has their head in the sand and nothing is being said or done about the phenomenal spread of ממזרות    thru the use of  גיטין מעושים   

I would like to state one principle which would enlighten many people to the severity of the situation. A lady who marries receives the status of an אשת איש . This status can only be removed thru a נט given by people who have a חזקת כשרות. We find the exact same paradigm by שחיטה. The only way a person can eat a cow that was נשחט was if the שוחט that performed the שחיטה had a חזקת כשרות. If the שוחט lost his חזקת כשרות and went ahead and was שוחט a cow there is no way that this cow can be eaten. If the meat was cooked in a pot the pot becomes Trief and is not allowed to be used. Now we can go back to אשת איש . 

As of Oct 13 Wolmark,Epstein, the 3 דיינים at the warehouse, and the םופר have all lost their חזקת כשרות. Any גיטין post that date in which they are involved are פסול.

The retroactive issue is much more complex. A blog would not be the proper place to discuss this since it involves a great deal of literature, a more appropriate place would be a Torah Journal. However since Hellman has stated that on Aug, 2011 he participated in a similar event in Flatbush it is incumbent on the Rabonim of Flatbush to fully investigate this issue. If it is found that this was also a גט מעושה שלא כדין  then they must follow thru with the ramifications that those supervising that incident have lost their חזקת כשרות and all subsequent ניטין given by those in charge are void. This an issue of לאפרושי מאיםורא דאשת איש and the women who are the recipients of these invalid ניטין must be told they cannot remarry and those who have remarried must be told to leave their new marriage. All those who shirk their responsibility are עתיד ליתן את הדין

A Primer on Shalach Manos by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times  

 THE MITZVAH

Mordechai and his Beis Din enacted that on the day of Purim each person must send a gift of at least two portions of food to a friend. This is seen from the verse in Megilas Esther, “Umishloach manos ish l’reyehu.”

THE REASONS

What is the reason behind the mitzvah of shalach manos? Two reasons are brought down. The Terumas HaDeshen (Siman 111) writes that it is to ensure that the recipients not run out of food items to serve for their meals.

The Manos HaLevi on Megillas Esther (9:19), written by Rav Shlomo Alkabetz and cited by the Chasam Sofer, writes an altogether different reason: to increase peace and brotherly love.  This is the opposite of the characterization of the Jewish people by Haman as a nation “Mefuzar umefurad” spread and standing apart on account of internal arguments.

PREAMBLE AND INTENTIONS

The Yesod v’Shoresh HaAvodah writes that one should recite the following preamble before fulfilling the Mitzvah:

לשם יחוד קודשא בריך הוא הריני מוכן ומזומן לקיים מצות עשה של דברי קבלה “ומשלוח מנות איש לרעהו.”

When performing the Mitzvah one should not just perform it perfunctorily, but should focus on the qualities of the recipient and place within his heart a strong love for his fellow man.  He should intend to honor him and to strengthen his inner joy with this package of Shalach Manos.

WHO IS OBLIGATED 

Men and women are both included in this mitzvah. The halachah is that men send to men, and women send to women. Women are obligated in the mitzvah because, according to the Mishnah Berurah, “they too were involved in the miracle.”  A child should be instructed to fulfill the Mitzvah just as one instructs a child to fulfill all the other Mitzvos.  The child may send to another child, as the other child is considered his or her peer.

Even a poor person is required to fulfill the mitzvah of mishloach manos. The mitzvah of mishloach manos may not be fulfilled with money, clothing, or other non-food or non-drink items. The mitzvah may only be fulfilled with kosher items.

HOW FANCY

Another little-known halachah about shalach manos is found in an esoteric Biur Halachah (written by the Chofetz Chaim) in Orach Chaim 695. He writes that the Chayei Adam has proved from a passage in the Talmud Yerushalmi that if one sends a Purim package to a wealthy individual, the package must be a respectable one.

Thus, one should not send something below the kavod of the recipient. The poskim have ruled that a lollipop is not considered chashuv for an adult, nor is a bottle of Poland Spring water or seltzer.  To fulfill the Mitzvah, the portions must convey sufficient regard for the recipient.  

The Biur Halachah writes that the Ritva’s comment on his version of the Talmud Bavli agrees with the Chayei Adam. A careful reading of the Ritva, however, reveals that the Ritva and Chayei Adam are not exactly the same. Both of them require an upgraded Purim package on account of wealth; of that there is no question. However, the Ritva’s requirement is of the wealth of the giver—not the recipient. In other words, according to the Ritva, if the giver is very wealthy, his package must reflect that as well and he cannot fulfill the mitzvah with a meager package. Since the Biur Halachah does quote both the Chayei Adam and the Ritva, both would seem to be authoritative.

Therefore, one should not send something below the kavod of the giver or the recipient. [...]

Rav Shlomo Miller and the Dodelson divorce

   Rav Shlomo Miller, and the Dodelson Divorce 

Gratitude for being a talmid chachom and not yoshvei karnos

The recent video from the Atzeres which used the song of the text from Berachos (28b) to contrast the Torah scholar and the yoshvei karnos (as protrayed by the secular politicians and soldiers) has raised a great deal of protest. The real issue is whether it accurately portrayed the meaning of the gemora. I have gathered together a number of sources that clairfy the meaning of the yoshvei karnos that are being denigrated and described as going to Hell.

אנו משכימים הקליפ הרשמי של עצרת המיליון by Daas-Torah

A review of the material seems to indicate that there are two meanings of the word yoshvei karnos (literally those who sit in the corners). 1) They are pleasure seeking idlers who focus on having a good time and speaking lashon harah. Thus they are not only not productively involved but are constantly involved in sin. 2) They are all those people who are not full time Torah scholars sitting in the beis medrash. 

Thus Berachos (28b) can be understood either to contrast the extremes of Torah scholars versus idlers or to contrast Torah Scholars and all others including those who are constructively involved in the well-being of society. I don't think there is any objection to the former understanding but there clearly is to the latter. [In fact Rav Kook said that the text was mistaken and said it originally said those who go to theaters and circuses. Rav Ephraim Blitzer convincingly refuted Rav Kook's arguments.] 

The problem then is how to meaningfully explain it as a contrast between Talmidei Chachom and all others. My understanding is that this is a prayer of thanks for the opportunity to be a Talmid Chachom. Thus the focus is on the uniqueness of the talmid chachom and that relatively speaking any other option is a waste. The Rambam has a similar comment in his Commentary to the Mishna where he says that purpose for the creation of the world is the Talmid Chachom and anyone else has no significance except to the degree that he supports the Talmid Chachom. Thus relatively speaking the gap between a talmid chachom and everyone else is so great that they are worthless and wasted relative to him. Such a view is difficult for a secular person to accept. 

Rav Moshe Feinstein notes in the Igros Moshe [Y.D. III #82; Y.D. IV 36.15;E.H. IV 116] that a doctor is not a ben Torah. Someone objected to this comment which denigrates a doctor whose every spare moment is spent studying Torah. Rav Moshe replied that a ben Torah is someone whose entire focus is on Torah. Someone who is working at a job which requires complete devotion to something other than Torah – cannot be a ben Torah.

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

Berachos (28b): Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man say? ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them’. On his leaving what does he say? ‘I give thanks to Thee, O Lord my God, that Thou hast set my portion with those who sit in the Beth ha-Midrash and Thou hast not set my portion with those who sit in [street] corners, for I rise early and they rise early, but I rise early for words of Torah and they rise early for frivolous talk; I labour and they labour, but I labour and receive a reward and they labour and do not receive a reward; I run and they run, but I run to the life of the future world and they run to the pit of destruction 

Rashi (Berachos 28b): those who sit in street corners (yoshvei karnos): - shopkeepers or ignorant people

Rambam(Hilchos Berachos 10:24):וביציאתו מבית המדרש אומר מודה אני לפניך יי' אלהי ששמת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא שמת חלקי מיושבי קרנות שאני משכים והם משכימים אני משכים לדברי תורה והם משכימים לדברים בטלים אני עמל והם עמלין אני עמל לדברי תורה ומקבל שכר והם עמלין ואין מקבלין שכר אני רץ והם רצים אני רץ לחיי העולם הבא והם רצים לבאר שחת.

Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 100:8): One who enters into a beis medrash should pray, "May it be Thy will O L-rd and the G-d of our fathers that I should not error in matters of halacha..." And when he leaves he should say, "I give thanks before you O L-rd my G-d, that You have place my portion with those who sit in the Beis Medrash.."

בבא קמא (פב. ): שיהו קוראין במנחה בשבת - משום יושבי קרנות

רש"י (בבא קמא פב.): משום יושבי קרנות - יושבי חניות כל ימות החול עוסקין בסחורה ואין קורין בשני ובחמישי תקון בגינייהו קריאה יתירה.

סנהדרין )ג.): רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר: מדאורייתא חד נמי כשר, שנאמר בצדק תשפט עמיתך, אלא משום יושבי קרנות. אטו בתלתא מי לא הוו יושבי קרנות? - אי אפשר דלית בהו חד דגמיר. - אלא מעתה טעו לא ישלמו! - כל שכן דנפישי יושבי קרנות.

רש"י (סנהדרין ג.): גזירה משום יושבי קרנות - תגרין, שאין בקיאין בטיב דינין, ויזכה את החייב ויחייב את הזכאי.

מלבי"ם )תהלים א:א): ומוסיף ובמושב לצים לא ישב, הלצים הם יושבי קרנות אינם פועלים רע אבל גם לא יעשו טוב רק רודפים רוח והבל ולצנות ואינם עוסקים בתורה

יד רמ"ה (סנהדרין ג.): יושבי קרנות לשון קרן זוית והן בטלנין שאין עוסקין במלאכה אלא יושבין בקרנות העיר ופעמים שבני אדם באין מאיליהן ונידונין בפניהם בזמן שבתי דינין טרודין בדין אחר ובאין לפני אלו שהן יושבין בטלין אחמירו רבנן לאצרוכי שלשה

מאירי (נדרים כ.): וכן יזהר אדם שלא להתחבר עם הנבלים והטפשים ויושבי קרנות שלא ימשכוהו בחבלי שוא ובעבותות של פריצות וכן בכל חברה מקולקלת כל אחד לפי ענינו

מאירי (בבא קמא פב.): עשר תקנות תקן עזרא לישראל הראשונה שיהו קורין בשבת במנחה בספר תורה מפני יושבי קרנות שהשבת אחר אכילה ושינה זמן ישיבת קרנות הוא לפחותים ולהמון מצד שאין מלאכה בשבת ותקן שבאותה שעה יתקבצו כלם וישמעו דבר תורה:

הערוך (בערך קרן ג':) יושבי קרנות פירוש אנשי דלא מעלי לבי מדרשא אלא רגילין שיושבין בקרנות העיר ועוסקין בדברי שיחה,

מנורת המאור (פרק טז - החנופה והליצנות עמוד 290 ): החלק הד'. הקובע עצמו תמיד לשיחה בטלה כדרך יושבי קרנות. ושתי רעות יש בדבר הרע הזה. האחד, שכל המרבה דברים מביא חטא, ר"ל דברים בטלים, כ"ש מי שהוא קובע את עצמו תמיד לדברים בטלים. והשני, שהוא בטל מדברי תורה. ויש בדבר הזה דרכי מות, הואיל והוא בטל מדברי תורה, שהיא עץ חיים. ודרשו רז"ל מי שאפשר לו לעסוק בתורה ועוסק, עליו הכתוב אומר ובמושב לצים לא ישב, וכתי' בתריה כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו. הא למדת, שמושב לצים מביא לידי ביטול תורה.

אורחות צדיקים (שער הגאוה): הגאוה במעלת החכמה היא משובחת, שנאמר (ירמיה ט כג): "כי אם בזאת יתהלל המתהלל השכל וידוע אותי", ויוסיף הודאה לבורא, ברוך הוא, וגם דעה והשכל ומידות טובות בתפילת החכמה: "מודה אני לפניך שנתת חלקי מיושבי בית המדרש ולא מיושבי קרנות", וכמו: "אשרנו מה טוב חלקנו ומה נעים גורלנו". ועל זה נאמר (דברי הימים ב יז ו): "ויגבה לבו בדרכי ה'", כי יהיה אדם יקר רוח וגבה לב בעניני העולם הבא, שלא יספיק לו במה שיזדמן לו, ולא יאמר די במה שתמצא ידו מהם, אלא ימעט בעיניו כל מעשהו, ותגבה נפשו למעלה תמיד, ויתרעם בנפשו כמו שמקצר מעבודת הבורא, ברוך הוא. וזאת הגאוה אינה מזקת לענוה, אך מסייעתו וגורמת לו לשמוח במעלות הטובות, ולשמוח בכבוד חביריו, ולחוס על כבודם. 

Judge Dismisses Charges Against Whistle-Blower in Sexual Abuse Case

NY Times   In a case that riveted the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community in Brooklyn, a judge on Friday dismissed all charges against Samuel Kellner, a whistle-blower who had been charged with trying to extort money from the family of an accused molester and bribing a grand jury witness to testify falsely.

The dismissal came at the request of prosecutors, who told Justice Guy J. Mangano in State Supreme Court in Brooklyn that the case against Mr. Kellner had fallen apart. The two key witnesses against him “lack credibility to such a degree that their testimony cannot be trusted,” an assistant district attorney, Kevin O’Donnell, told the court, adding, “The people do not have a credible case.” [...]

But there was still a cloud of uncertainty over Mr. Kellner’s freedom. Two lawyers for Mr. Lebovits, Arthur L. Aidala and Alan M. Dershowitz, the prominent lawyer and author, conferred with prosecutors and the judge for about an hour before the case’s dismissal. Mr. Dershowitz later told reporters that he believed an audiotape turned over by the district attorney on Thursday contained evidence against Mr. Kellner that would cause his case to be reopened. “This case is not over,” Mr. Dershowitz said, prompting a shouting match with Kellner supporters. [...]

"Reaching My Autistic Son Through Disney" - Finding your voice

While this is an amazing article about autism - the processes he describes sound very similar to Torah learning - constant review of material already learned, medrash and agadata with its language of metaphor and parable. Learning to communicate with bits of the debates of chazal, rishonim and achronim.

NY Times     In our first year in Washington, our son disappeared.

Just shy of his 3rd birthday, an engaged, chatty child, full of typical speech — “I love you,” “Where are my Ninja Turtles?” “Let’s get ice cream!” — fell silent. He cried, inconsolably. Didn’t sleep. Wouldn’t make eye contact. His only word was “juice.”

I had just started a job as The Wall Street Journal’s national affairs reporter. My wife, Cornelia, a former journalist, was home with him — a new story every day, a new horror. He could barely use a sippy cup, though he’d long ago graduated to a big-boy cup. He wove about like someone walking with his eyes shut. “It doesn’t make sense,” I’d say at night. “You don’t grow backward.” Had he been injured somehow when he was out of our sight, banged his head, swallowed something poisonous? It was like searching for clues to a kidnapping.

After visits to several doctors, we first heard the word “autism.” Later, it would be fine-tuned to “regressive autism,” now affecting roughly a third of children with the disorder. Unlike the kids born with it, this group seems typical until somewhere between 18 and 36 months — then they vanish. Some never get their speech back. Families stop watching those early videos, their child waving to the camera. Too painful. That child’s gone.

In the year since his diagnosis, Owen’s only activity with his brother, Walt, is something they did before the autism struck: watching Disney movies. “The Little Mermaid,” “Beauty and the Beast,” “Aladdin” — it was a boom time for Disney — and also the old classics: “Dumbo,” “Fantasia,” “Pinocchio,” “Bambi.” They watch on a television bracketed to the wall in a high corner of our smallish bedroom in Georgetown. It is hard to know all the things going through the mind of our 6-year-old, Walt, about how his little brother, now nearly 4, is changing. They pile up pillows on our bed and sit close, Walt often with his arm around Owen’s shoulders, trying to hold him — and the shifting world — in place. [...]

So we join him upstairs, all of us, on a cold and rainy Saturday afternoon in November 1994. Owen is already on the bed, oblivious to our arrival, murmuring gibberish. . . . “Juicervose, juicervose.” It is something we’ve been hearing for the past few weeks. Cornelia thinks maybe he wants more juice; but no, he refuses the sippy cup. “The Little Mermaid” is playing as we settle in, propping up pillows. We’ve all seen it at least a dozen times, but it’s at one of the best parts: where Ursula the sea witch, an acerbic diva, sings her song of villainy, “Poor Unfortunate Souls,” to the selfish mermaid, Ariel, setting up the part in which Ursula will turn Ariel into a human, allowing her to seek out the handsome prince, in exchange for her voice.

When the song is over, Owen lifts the remote. Hits rewind.

“Come on, Owen, just let it play!” Walt moans. But Owen goes back just 20 seconds or so, to the song’s next-to-last stanza, with Ursula shouting:

Go ahead — make your choice!

I’m a very busy woman, and I haven’t got all day.

It won’t cost much, just your voice!

He does it again. Stop. Rewind. Play. And one more time. On the fourth pass, Cornelia whispers, “It’s not ‘juice.’ ” I barely hear her. “What?” “It’s not ‘juice.’ It’s ‘just’ . . . ‘just your voice’!”

I grab Owen by the shoulders. “Just your voice! Is that what you’re saying?!”

He looks right at me, our first real eye contact in a year. “Juicervose! Juicervose! Juicervose!”

Walt starts to shout, “Owen’s talking again!” A mermaid lost her voice in a moment of transformation. So did this silent boy. “Juicervose! Juicervose! Juicervose!” Owen keeps saying it, watching us shout and cheer. And then we’re up, all of us, bouncing on the bed. Owen, too, singing it over and over — “Juicervose!” — as Cornelia, tears beginning to fall, whispers softly, “Thank God, he’s in there.” [...]