Freeing an agunah whose husband is in a vegetative state

 update:  Rav Sternbuch's objection & R Z N Goldberg's clarification

update:  Original Psak

update Haaretz     Rav Zalman Nechemia Goldberg approves

בעקבות סירוב הרב יוסף להצטרף לפסק הדין, הדיינים בראשות הרב אוריאל לביא פנו לדיין בכיר מחוץ למערכת הרשמית של המדינה, הרב זלמן נחמיה גולדברג, העומד בראש בית דין רבני פרטי בירושלים. גולדברג כתב, כי לאחר שקרא את פסק הדין של לביא, כי "דבריו נכונים מאוד ואני מצטרף לדעתו להתיר במקרה המיוחד שלפנינו". ל"הארץ" נודע, כי בשבועות האחרונים פנו גורמים רבניים לרב גולדברג, בדרישה שיחזור בו מתמיכתו בפסק הדין. 

בין המתנגדים לפסק הדין ישנם דיינים במערכת הרשמית, שאחד מהם אמר אתמול כי"פסק הדין הזה שווה כקליפת השום". בשבועות הקרובים צפוי להתפרסם פסק דין של בית דין רבני מחיפה שהתבקש להתיר עגונה שבעלה נמצא במצב של "צמח" לאחר ניסיון התאבדות כושל. גורמים במערכת בתי הדין אומרים, כי פסק הדין מחיפה הולך להיות גם תגובה נוקבת נגד הדיינים מצפת על עצם השימוש בגט זיכוי. 

בינתיים, מי שיצא באופן נחרץ נגד פסק הדין הוא הרב עו"ד דב הלברטל, מומחה למשפט עברי שהיה גם מקורב למנהיג הליטאי המנוח הרב יוסף שלום אלישיב. "זו שערורייה ליברלית", אמר הלברטל על פסק הדין. "אין צורך אפילו לקרוא את פסק הדין כדי להבין את זה. לא ייפלא שהרב אלישיב לחם נגד רבנים מהציונות הדתית שהם דיינים והנה אנחנו רואים תוצאה שהרכב של בני ציונות דתית מוציא תחת ידו פסק דין מרחיק לכת כזה. הרי הבעל הוא אדם חי, והאשה היא אשת איש. זה כבר מעבר למדרון החלקלק של הפקעת נישואין, מייצרים כאן פתרון קל לכל בעיותיהן של עגונות או של אומללות בחיי נישואין. לא היה פסק דין כזה למעט אולי פסק הדין של הרב גורן הממזרים (1972), לא היה פסק דין חמור כזה שמשחק לידי הליברלים. יכולות להיות לו השלכות חמורות ביותר".

   kikarhashabat

פסק דין תקדימי של בית הדין האזורי בצפת התיר עגונה שבעלה מוגדר כצמח. הדיינים נעזרו בהליך שנקרא "גט זיכוי", על פיו, הדיינים קובעים כי רצון הבעל הוא להתיר את אשתו, ובכך לאפשר לאישה להינשא מחדש. ההחלטה, שפורסמה לראשונה ב"הארץ", ניתנה לפני כחודשיים, ואמש פרסמה הנהלת בתי הדין הרבניים את פסק הדין מאת הרכב הדיינים בראשות הרב אוריאל לביא 

.

הראשל"צ, הרב יצחק יוסף, נשיא בית הדין הרבני הגדול והרב הראשי לישראל, סירב להצטרף לפסק הדין התקדימי, כמו גם מספר דיינים חשובים נוספים. עם זאת, הדיינים פסקו בלעדיו, כשהם מסתמכים על אסמכתות מהרב צבי פסח פראנק והחזון אי"ש, ומוסיפים אסמכתות מעשרות מקורות אחרים 

.

הדיינים ציינו כי פסיקתם הובאה גם לפני הרב עובדיה יוסף בסוף ימיו, אבל מפאת מצבו הבריאותי לא זכו לתשובה. יחד עם הרב לביא, ישבו והחליטו על פסק הדין הרבנים חיים בזק ויוסף יגודה 

.

בפסק הדין כתבו הדיינים כי "על יסוד החומר שבפנינו ושמיעת חוות הדעת הרפואית, הגענו למסקנה ברורה שאין בה ספק - הבעל במצבו הנוכחי אינו כשיר לחלוטין לכל סוג של תקשורת עם הסובב אותו, אינו מודע ואינו מבין ברמה המינימלית והבסיסית ביותר אף את צרכיו הבסיסיים שלו 

".

בעקבות כך, החליטו הדיינים כי האישה היא "ספק אשת איש", וחובותיה כלפי הבעל, המוגדר "שוטה", אינם מלאים 

.

בית הדין ניסה בתחילה להתיר אותה בטענה ל"פסילת קידושין", אך לאחר שמצא כי לא היה פגם בהליך הנישואין לא אפשר את התרתה על בסיס זה.

What does Judaism mean by happiness?

Happiness in Premodern Judaism Virtue, Knowledge, and Well-Being

by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson

Properly understood, I contend that in Judaism happiness does not mean possessing material goods, having fun, feeling content, or enjoying physical pleasures, although some of these elements may be part of the happy life. 

Happiness is not a subjective feeling manifested in a given moment or for a short period of time. Instead, it means flourishing, thriving, and experienc­ing well-being appropriate to human beings. It is an objective state of affairs that pertains to human nature and to the quality of a human life as a whole,from the perspective of its entire duration.

Moreover, the intrinsically good life is inseparable from a set of religious beliefs, the most important of which is that God, the creator of the world, has a special relationship with the People of Israel, to whom God revealed His Wisdom and Will in a form of law: the Torah. The challenging question, then, is not "How can Judaism be concerned with happiness?" but rather, "Can the notion of happiness in Judaism make sense independent of the belief in Torah and the life that flows from it?" I answer that question in the negative. Until Baruch (Benedict) Spinoza in the mid-seventeenth cen­tury, all premodern Jewish thinkers held that Jews could flourish only if they lived the life of Torah and devoted themselves to fathoming God's Wis­dom. Nonetheless, their views were not all struck from one mold. Over time, those thinkers gave different answers to the basic questions "What does Torah mean?" "How does the Torah ensure human happiness?" "How does Torah relate to Wisdom?" and "What results from following Torah and pursuing Wisdom?

Review Commission for purported Marranos - Oporto, Portugal

   

Dozens Arrested in New York State Child Pornography Investigation

NY Times In what law enforcement officials have described as the largest-ever enforcement operation in New York going after people who “possess, produce or distribute sexually explicit images of children,” 70 people have been arrested across the state and charged with crimes involving the exploitation of children.

The people arrested include two police officers, two registered nurses, a paramedic, an au pair, and an individual who served as both a den master with the Boy Scouts of America and a Little League baseball coach.

The arrests, made in recent weeks, came after investigators were able to surreptitiously infiltrate peer-to-peer file-sharing networks in the New York City metropolitan area used by people seeking to distribute and acquire images and videos of children engaged in sexually explicit activities.

During the course of the investigation, known as Operation Caireen, law enforcement officials monitored activity on some 150 Internet Protocol addresses for more than a month, from April 4 to May 15. [...]

On Jan. 23, Brian Fanelli, chief of the Mount Pleasant Police Department in Valhalla, N.Y., was arrested and charged with the possession of child pornography.

The charges stunned the small northern Westchester County community where Mr. Fanelli was well liked and had taught children in religious classes at St. Elizabeth Ann Seton Church in Shrub Oak, N.Y., how to be alert to sexual abuse.

On March 5, Samuel Waldman, a rabbi and an instructor of Judaic studies, was arrested at his residence in Brooklyn. He was also charged with possession of child pornography.

Law enforcement officials said those two cases provided critical information that led to the broader operation.

Schlesinger Twins: Letter of British Chief Rabbi Ephraim Mirvis

Epstein-Friedman divorce: Actions of Rabbis Kamenetsky and Schacter

Guest Post by Izzy

The actions of Rabbis Kamenetsky and Schachter in the Epstein-Friedman matter unfortunately illustrate the severe problems caused by rabbonim and roshei yeshiva who have very close family and/or financial and personal connections to one party in a dispute intervening in a one-sided fashion to further inflame the dispute – all the while being treated as impartial and neutral arbiters and judges in such dispute.

Epstein and Friedman brought their dispute to the Baltimore Beis Din, which held several hearings into the case and did not require that Friedman give a get or issue any other ruling against him. Epstein violated the Baltimore Beis Din’s orders regarding dismissing the civil court trial that Friedman had delayed by eight months in order to bring the case to the Baltimore Beis Din. Epstein successfully argued in civil court that her unilateral relocation of the child from Maryland to Pennsylvania should be treated as a fait accompli because of the time that had elapsed between the relocation and the trial. Epstein also successfully asked the court to arrange a custody schedule where much of the child’s time with Friedman was rendered moot because of Shabbos.

Epstein then involved the Washington Beis Din, which ruled that it could not get involved given that the parties had brought the matter to the Baltimore Beis Din whose orders Epstein had violated.

Epstein turned to Rabbi Kamenetsky who issued public letters attacking Friedman and his family. Rabbi Kamenetsky has longstanding personal and financial relationships with Epstein’s family, which are widely known and have actually appeared in various newspapers. Rabbi Kamenetsky should have been widely condemned for weighing in on this matter in favor of a family to whom he has such close ties, and his completely contradicting the decision of the Beis Din to which the parties had actually brought the matter. Instead, many in the Orthodox community simply disregarded the Baltimore Beis Din and gave credence to Rabbi Kamenetsky’s denunciations of Friedman.

Rabbi Hershel Schachter and ORA, of which Rabbi Schachter serves as posek, then jumped into the matter claiming that the position of the beis din chosen by the parties should be disregarded because Rabbi Kamenetsky had taken the opposite position. Even while the Baltimore Beis Din said that Friedman had not committed any wrongdoing and that actions against him were wrong, ORA insisted upon demonstrating against Friedman and also against the Washington Beis Din for refusing to intervene against Friedman.

Think about this: two parties brought a matter to a beis din. One party didn’t like the beis din’s decision, so that party gets a rosh yeshiva with whom that party has close personal connections to publicly attack the other party?! And then Rabbi Schachter declares that the beis din is irrelevant because the rosh yeshiva is a godol and incites communal attacks on the other party?! This outrageous behavior makes a mockery of halacha, the very concept of a beis din, and the Orthodox community.

If the tactics were meant to coerce a get, the tactics were not working. But the fact that Rabbis Kamenetsky and Schachter were able to get away with such outrageous behavior, not only against Friedman and his family, but against the Baltimore Beis Din and the Washington Beis Din, just incited them to more outrageous behavior.

Eventually, Rabbi Kamenetsky was able to cobble together a so-called beis din to purport to issue a “seruv” against Friedman. The “beis din” did not even pretend to function as anything other than a kangaroo court. The “beis din” did not bother issuing even a single hazmana, but started off with a “hasra’a acharona” [final warning] demanding that Friedman give a get, thus issuing its ruling before even commencing any proceedings. Rabbi Kamenetsky signed the purported “seruv” while Rabbi Schachter added his signature. Another signatory was Rabbi Moredchai Wolmark, who was recently arrested by the FBI, along with several others, on charges of ordering a kidnapping and beating of a man in order to obtain a get. Several of the co-conspirators have already pleaded guilty. The competence of Rabbi Wolmark, or the complete lack thereof, was demonstrated by the fact that Rabbi Wolmark ordered the kidnapping and beating of a fictional husband regarding a marriage that did not exist. Two other signatories have been alleged to be involved in similar beatings in the past. That anyone would assign any credence to the actions of this “beis din,” particularly given that the parties had previously brought the matter to another beis din, is beyond absurd – but yet many did.

Subsequently, Friedman was attacked by several masked individuals while returning the child to Epstein’s house on Tisha Ba’av in July 2012, in an apparent attempted kidnapping and beating. The attack endangered not only Friedman’s life but that of the child. But still, few rabbonim were willing to denounce the outrageous behavior, and instead many continued to publicly attack Friedman and his family instead.

This just further emboldened Rabbi Kamenetsky to believe that any actions he undertakes, no matter how directly contrary to halacha, will receive wide acceptance if those actions are undertaken on behalf of a wealthy and influential family. But all the public attacks against Friedman were not working. And the attractiveness of ordering another assault against Friedman apparently diminished after the FBI sting operation. The idea that Epstein should come to a reasonable resolution of all matters, despite the fact that she is part of a powerful family accustomed to getting its way, seems to be something that Rabbi Kamenetsky never even considered, proclaiming that there was nothing to negotiate. When another rav in Philadelphia attempted to initiate negotiations, he was told in no uncertain terms by the Epsteins to mind his own business.

So it should not be that surprising that in December 2013, two months following the aforementioned FBI arrests, ORA publicly announced that Tamar is “free” although she has not received a get – apparently approved by Rabbi Kamenetsky. Given the acceptance of his outrageous behavior until now, it should not be surprising that Rabbi Kamenetsky would believe that this too will be accepted.

Tamar Epstein is free according to the Kaminetsky's - how they explained it.

ORA has suddenly proclaimed that Tamara Epstein - after a number of years as an "aguna" because her husband would not give her a get  - was actually free to marry without receiving a get from Aharon Friedman. The obvious meaning is that she and her rabbinical advisors decided that she didn't need a get.

Rabbi Bleich in his discussion of Rabbi Rackman's "getless divorce" said Rabbi Rackman claimed that when a husband won't give a get on demand it "proves" he suffers from an unbearable blemish of cruelty  that no normal person would marry if she had known about it. Upon finding about it after marriage the marriage declared simply never having existed.

In fact a "getless divorce was approved by Rav Moshe Feinstein. But only if the following conditions were met. 1) There is a severe fundamental flaw(e.g.., cruelty or mental illness) in the spouse that preexisted the marriage that if known - the marriage would never have happened because 2)  no normal person could accept marriage to the person. 3) In addition he requires that the spouse leave immediately upon finding out about this "unbearable flaw".

These conditions clearly don't exist in regards to Aharon Friedman.    I have talked with Aharon and he manifested no sign of mental illness. Tamar Epstein has written that Aharon Friedman is a nice guy but just not for her. The head of the Baltimore Beis Din told me he doesn't understand why the marriage dissolved. They lived together long enough to have a child. It is hard to imagine what excuse the Kaminetsky's have other than the nonsense that Rabbi Rackman spouted that not giving a get indicates a fundamental flaw which shows that there never was a marriage.

A number of commentators have complained that before criticizing Rav Shmuel and Shalom Kaminetsky (her main rabbinical advisors) they should be contacted to hear their explanation. As has been reported a number of times - they were in fact contacted and they did not offer a meaningful explanation. The following is a report by one of our regular participants - Joe Orlow - of what happened when he called up for an explanation.  

Guest post - Joe Orlow

-----------

Tamar Epstein is married to Aharon Friedman.

The Organization for Resolution of Agunot (ORA) proclaims "Tamar is Free".

So I called ORA.

I spoke to someone there. Apparently "Free" to them means that Tamar is no longer an "Aguna."

They weren't going to tell me much more.

I called the Talmudical Yeshiva of Philadelphia. It took several calls but I reached Rabbi Shmuel Kamenetsky. I told him why I was calling. His reaction was: "...Heter Meah Rabbonim". He seemed to be making light of the whole thing.

I'm not sure if "Heter Meah Rabbonim" meant he didn't have information about how she was "Free", or if he was aware how she became "Free" and was sending me a message that he didn't want to tell me the reason.

I felt like a joker.

Rabbi Kamenetsky indicated that his son, Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky, is closer to Tamar than he is.

I called the Yeshiva again, got Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky's home number. Called the home number. I got the cell number. At some point Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky and I connected by phone.

In the course of the conversation he said something like Tamar is "Mutar". That Aharon should give a "Get L'Chumra." I asked him how Tamar could remarry without it being revealed how she is allowed to remarry.

He told me that when someone is set to marry her, that information will be revealed to that person.

He inquired of me if I was interested in marrying her.

I think he was serious. It was not that he was trying to put me off. It was as if it had occurred to him that the reason I was pestering him with questions about Tamar Epstein's marital status was because behind my words was a desire to marry her.

I was taken aback then, as I am now, and am filled with disgust, fear, shock and loathing even as I write this. Someone was asking me if I want a married woman. I felt like I was standing at the Gates of Hell.

I had one last question before we ended our conversation. I asked him if I could quote him as saying that Aharon has not given Tamar a Get.

"You said that," Rabbi Kamenetsky shot back. Strange, I thought.

Consider. If there is a Get, wouldn't he just say there is? And if he's telling me that Aharon should give a "Get L'chumra" isn't that tantamount to saying Aharon has not given a Get? So why was it necessary for him to emphasize that he never said a Get wasn't given?

Perhaps he just didn't want me quoting him at all.

In summary, it was apparent from the conversation that Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky was saying that if anyone is interested in marrying Tamar that they should contact him. I think he even said that explicitly.

It is with great reluctance that I write this, because some misguided young man may actually now contact Rabbi Shalom Kamenetsky, and this young man could come to, Rachmona L'tzlon, desire a married woman or even Chas V'Shalom marry her. The benefit to the community of publicizing the shenanigans outweighs this remote possibility. The Ways of H' are straight and the righteous walk in them and willful sinners will stumble in them.

Rabbi Nissan Kaplan says ‘kill ministers’ statement was only a joke

Times of Israel   [Not just Rabbi Herschel Schacter has foot in mouth problems.].

[file has been removed ]And here is the link to the recording: 

https://mega.co.nz/#!voZlnAoY!G2t4PufKfNnIhGQ2L64RpPODtkec53pXFxFfMUWFKNk

Fast forward to 36:50 to hear what he has to say.

A popular rabbi at a prominent ultra-Orthodox yeshiva in Jerusalem issued a retraction over the weekend after reports surfaced Thursday that he had called for the killing of government ministers

Rabbi Nissan Kaplan of the Mir Yeshiva, one of the largest and most prestigious yeshivas in the world, told a class of students in a March lecture that ultra-Orthodox leader Rabbi Aharon Leib Steinman viewed the Israeli government as Amalek (the Biblical enemy of Israel whom the Jews are commanded to destroy), and sanctioned killing those who called for yeshiva students to enlist in the IDF.[...]

“You have to take a sword and to kill them,” Kaplan was recorded saying in the lecture, claiming to quote Steinman. “So why are we not doing it? Because, he said, I don’t know yet who is the [suitable replacement] general who could run the war. But if I would know who’s the general, we’d go out with knives. This is what Rav Steinman said. There’s a war against religion.” [...]

The rabbi, who originally hails from the US, told the Jewish Chronicle Online over the weekend that he had “never meant such a thing” and said that the story about his child was “a joke.” [...]

Thousands of Toddlers Are Medicated for A.D.H.D., Report Finds, Raising Worries

NY Times   More than 10,000 American toddlers 2 or 3 years old are being medicated for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder outside established pediatric guidelines, according to data presented on Friday by an official at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The report, which found that toddlers covered by Medicaid are particularly prone to be put on medication such as Ritalin and Adderall, is among the first efforts to gauge the diagnosis of A.D.H.D. in children below age 4. Doctors at the Georgia Mental Health Forum at the Carter Center in Atlanta, where the data was presented, as well as several outside experts strongly criticized the use of medication in so many children that young.

The American Academy of Pediatrics standard practice guidelines for A.D.H.D. do not even address the diagnosis in children 3 and younger — let alone the use of such stimulant medications, because their safety and effectiveness have barely been explored in that age group. “It’s absolutely shocking, and it shouldn’t be happening,” said Anita Zervigon-Hakes, a children’s mental health consultant to the Carter Center. “People are just feeling around in the dark. We obviously don’t have our act together for little children.”

Dr. Lawrence H. Diller, a behavioral pediatrician in Walnut Creek, Calif., said in a telephone interview: “People prescribing to 2-year-olds are just winging it. It is outside the standard of care, and they should be subject to malpractice if something goes wrong with a kid.”

Friday’s report was the latest to raise concerns about A.D.H.D. diagnoses and medications for American children beyond what many experts consider medically justified. Last year, a nationwide C.D.C. survey found that 11 percent of children ages 4 to 17 have received a diagnosis of the disorder, and that about one in five boys will get one during childhood. [...]

Baruch Leibovitz finally pleads guilty to sex abuse after 6 years

NY Daily News       A Brooklyn cantor pleaded guilty Friday to molesting a teenage boy a decade ago, putting an end to a protracted and politicized case.

Baruch Lebovits, 62, will be sentenced to two years for the 2004 sex abuse, but will likely do about six months in jail after good behavior and time served.

The resolution — coming after a trial, a lengthy prison term, a reversal on appeal and years of bitter litigation — is in line with the average punishment for these type of crimes, a judge said. [....]

Anti-abuse activists responded in disbelief and were quick to denounce the plea agreement and Brooklyn district attorney Kenneth Thompson. [...]

The sordid Lebovits saga dates back to his arrest in 2008, when he was charged with abusing three boys. He eventually went to trial in 2010 regarding one victim, who was 16 at the time of the repeated sexual abuse.

Lebovits was convicted and sentenced to up to 32 years in prison.

But, a year later, he was sprung pending appeal after prosecutors arrested Samuel Kellner on allegations that he extorted the Lebovits family and bribed a witness. Lebovits’ conviction was overturned in 2012 for prosecutors’ failure to disclose a document and a new trial was ordered

Going to secular court: When and how? Does beis din need to give permission

This is a very important topic and keeps coming up. Would somebody like to do a guest post on the topic?

שו"ע חושן משפט כו

סעיף א

 אסור לדון בפני דייני עובדי כוכבים ובערכאות שלהם (פי' מושב

קבוע לשריהם לדון בו),  אפילו בדין שדנים בדיני ישראל, ואפילו נתרצו ב' בעלי דינים לדון בפניהם, אסור. וכל הבא לידון בפניהם, הרי זה רשע, וכאילו חרף וגדף והרים יד בתורת מרע"ה. הגה: ויש ביד בית דין לנדותו ולהחרימו עד שיסלק יד העובדי כוכבים מעל חבירו (מהרי"ק שורש קנ"ד). וכן היו מחרימין המחזיק ביד ההולך לפני עובדי כוכבים (ריב"ש סי' ק"ב). ואפילו אינו דן לפני עובדי כוכבים, ק שכופהו על ידי עובדי כוכבים שיעמוד עמו לדין ישראל, ראוי למתחו על העמוד (מרדכי פ' הגוזל קמא). וע"ל סימן שפ"ח. מי שהלך בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים ונתחייב בדיניהם, ואחר כך חזר ותבעו לפני דייני ישראל, יש אומרים שאין נזקקין לו (מהרי"ק שורש קפ"ח /קפ"ז/); ויש אומרים דנזקקין לו (מרדכי בפ' הגוזל בתרא), אם לא שגרם הפסד לבעל דינו לפני עובדי כוכבים (מהר"מ מירזברק). והסברא ראשונה נראה לי עיקר.

סעיף ב

 היתה יד עובדי כוכבים תקיפה, ובעל דינו אלם, ואינו יכול להציל ממנו בדייני ישראל, יתבענו לדייני ישראל תחלה; אם לא רצה לבא, נוטל רשות מבית דין ומציל בדייני עובד כוכבים מיד בעל דינו. הגה: ויש רשות לבית דין לילך לפני עובדי כוכבים ולהעיד שזה חייב לזה (בה"ת בשם ר' שרירא). וכל זה דווקא כשאינו רוצה להיות ציית דין, אבל בלאו הכי אסור לבית דין להרשות לדון לפני עובדי כוכבים (מהרי"ק שורש א').

סעיף ג

 המקבל עליו בקנין לידון עם חבירו לפני עובדי כוכבים, אינו כלום, ואסור לידון בפניהם.  ואם קבל עליו שאם לא ילך בפניהם יהיה עליו כך וכך לעניים, אסור לילך לדון עמו לפני עובדי כוכבים  וחייב ליתן מה שקיבל עליו לעניים. ויש מי שאומר שאין בית דין מוציאין ממנו, אלא מודיעין אותו שחל הנדר עליו.

סעיף ד

 שטר שכתוב שיוכל לתבעו בדיני העו"ג, אינו רשאי לתבעו בפניהם. ואם מסר השטר לעובד כוכבים שיתבענו בדיניהם, חייב לשלם לו כל מה שהפסיד יותר ממה שהוא חייב בדיני ישראל. הגה: וכל זה שיכול לכופו בדין ישראל, אבל אם הלוה אלם, מותר למסרו לעובדי כוכבים (ב"י ס"ו בשם הריטב"א). וע"ל סוף סי' שס"ט (הרא"ש בתשובה כלל י"ח סי' א'). מדין עובד כוכבים המוכר שטר חוב לישראל על ישראל אחר, אם דן הוא בדין עובדי כוכבים.

Mendel Epstein's son arrested in new case: Stun guns used to force Divorce

Asbury Park Press    Two men were arrested at their township homes Thursday on charges that they took part in a kidnapping of a reluctant Orthodox Jewish husband to force him to grant his wife a religious divorce, beating him and shocking him with a stun gun on his fingers and genitals, according to the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey.

David Aryeh Epstein, 39, and Chaim Baruch Rubin, 32, are charged with kidnapping, according to U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman. Epstein is the son of Mendel Epstein, a 68-year-old Brooklyn rabbi who was accused of similar charges last fall.

According to the complaint, in November 2009 Rubin called the victim concerning a sales job opportunity at ShredZone in Lakewood, and the victim, who had been living in Brooklyn, moved to a temporary residence in Lakewood to begin work. A few days later, Rubin asked him to stay late for a private meeting.

When he walked to his car that evening, the victim was attacked by a group of men, the complaint says. He was dragged into a van, bound with duct tape and zip ties, beaten and shocked with a stun gun on his fingers and genitals until he agreed to grant his wife a divorce.  [...]

Mayo Clinic: Minnesota Woman Beats Cancer with Measles Vaccine

Text of Mayo Clinic report

The myth of therapist/therapy neutrality e.g., sex education

The following important discussion was taken from the comments section of  Psychology: Jewish alternative  to a more prominent location as an important issue in its own right. My observation is not only are therapists often not neutral but even frum therapists often assume that in conflicts between halacha and the therapy they learned - therapy wins out. Issue such as lashon harah about parents or spouses - which is sometimes permissible but often alternatives are not used because it is done for the sake of therapy. In the discussion below the mere mentioning of sex education creates major consequences which are not necessarily handled properly.

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

AllanKatzMay 13, 2014 at 6:48 PM

Can JOE be more specific as to the aveiros the therapists are validating. Validating usually means acknowledging/ empathic understanding for a problem or a solution to the problem , but not that it is acceptable or the long lasting solution we want 

Joe OrlowMay 15, 2014 at 1:33 AM

Allan,

That's a tall order. I intended my comment for those who have independently arrived at the same conclusion as I have. I'm not sure if I can successfully clarify my comment for others. Also, if I mention a specific case, even with hiding the identity and changing details, someone who knows me may figure out who I am referring to.

That being said, may I have your permission to build a hypothetical case? For example, let's take a teenage girl in a day school that bills itself as Modern. Let's call her "B.Y." for Bas Yisrael. I am making this up in a way that is consistent with the kinds of outcomes I've encountered. Correct at will.

B.Y. [sitting in therapist's office]: Uh, so...how do we start?

Therapist: Why don't you tell me what brought you here.

B.Y. [vehemently]: My parents! [almost spitting out the words] They forced me.

Therapist: [raising eyebrows slightly, look of intent concentration]

B.Y.: So it started out fine. I invited him to come to my house to do homework.

Therapist: Him?

B.Y.: Didn't my parents tell you ANYTHING?! My boyfriend...only he wasn't my boyfriend then. Just a classmate. We had a project due, and the teacher put us on the same team, so I said, 'Let's work on it at my house' and my parents were like, "OK."

Therapist: I'm sensing anger.

B.Y.: I AM angry. A few months before my parents had sat me down and we had a talk. They treated me with respect, answered all my questions -- I felt... [pauses]

Therapist: Yes?

B.Y.: ...I felt, you know, empowered! They were so sensitive and polite. We'd never had a conversation like that before.

Therapist: Do you want to tell me what you spoke about?

B.Y.: It was a candid and honest talk [voice drops to a whisper] about sex.

Therapist: Oh.

B.Y. [sparks flying] They said they TRUSTED me! They told me I was now expected to take on RESPONSIBILITY for my decisions!! [starts crying]

Therapist: [after a time, gently, not prying, almost like wondering to himself] Anything else?

B.Y.: [now composed] So, last week I told my parents that I wanted the same boy to work with me on some homework, and they said "No."

Therapist: [repeating] 'They said 'No.'"

B.Y.: "No." [catching herself] I mean, yes, they said "No." [Drawing out the words] So I said, "Why in the world did you talk to me about relationships if you didn't want me to have a relationship??" [puffing out cheeks, pouting, folding arms, withdrawing into herself]

Therapist: [silent]

B.Y. [after a long time of staring into nowhere, quietly, in a low monotone] The answer was they were trying to "prevent" me from having a relationship. [clams up again]

Therapist: So first they communicated with you in a way you understood to mean you had permission to have a boyfriend, while their intention was the opposite.

B.Y.: Oh, no. They DEFINITELY were signaling that they were willing to allow sex at home. I KNOW that because I found a link on their computer to an article that used the E X A CT same language they used in our original talk. Stuff like, "need not be a green light for promiscuity but can be a red light for undeclared, unpredictable, unsafe activity." They just changed their mind later when they were faced with the reality.

Therapist: Ah.

B.Y. [suddenly, looking up questioningly]: Do you you think that was right of them to act that way?

Now, Allan, I put it to you: what can the therapist possibly respond that is both professional and that will absolutely preclude the possibility of B.Y. saying to her friends: "My therapist says it's OK to have a boyfriend"?

AllanKatzMay 15, 2014 at 10:46 AM

I think I hear you. My 2 cents worth -Maybe the therapist can answer – I hear where you are coming from and sort of understand how you are feeling , but I would appreciate it if you could tell me more , I want to get a better understanding of your concerns and perspective. The boyfriend is only one solution to the kids concerns.

About your parents decisions – I think it would help if we could first get a better understanding of their concerns and perspectives

This will help the kid see the problem from the eyes of the parent and understand the consistency of their decisions. – if one finds oneself in a situation I can trust you to be responsible , but until marriage it is best build friendships with girls

A solution would be to take into account the concerns of both parties . When the concerns of parents are addressed we are setting limits. Sometimes a solution would be to give a kid more autonomy in another area to compensate