Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: Wednesday 10th of Av: Is Rifky coming with the original Mill Basin Beis Din as Yoel required?

NO SUBSTITUTE BEIS DIN IS ALLOWED

 Tomorrow the 6th of August/10th of Av - Yoel Weiss has offered to give his wife Rivky a get if she shows up at the address of the Mill Basin Beis Din listed on the siruv that they issued him. But that offers is only if the same dayanim who signed on the siruv, write the get and obviously only if these dayanim are recognized as competent to write Gittin.  For some unknown reason, Rivky has  not responded to Yoel's offer - for 19 days so far -  that she agrees to his terms and will show up. 

However she has posted on her facebook page that she will show up with a gathering of Rabbis - no mention of the Original Mill Basin Three. She will be very disappointed if she insists on a Get without showing that her original Mill Basin Basin is a valid and an authoritative beis din.  Trying to shame Yoel into using a substitute beis din is not going to work. Hopefully things will go as Yoel planned and she will be able to receive her Get.

Google Maps Street View of 1278 E 72nd Street

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

Guest post by David • 

Rivky Stein has posted the following statement, about an hour ago, on her facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Redee...

"Today is a day of great mourning for the Jewish people. May tomorrow be a day of great celebration!

Friends and supporters of Rivky: It is appropriate that immediately following Tisha B'Av, we are asking you to join us at a small, but important gathering at 1278 E 72nd Street in Brooklyn, which is the Beit Din of Mill Basin and Marine Park where Yoel Weiss agreed to show up for the intention of giving Rivky Stein, his estranged wife, a Get.

Please plan to be there by 11:45 AM. We have convened a gathering of rabbis. Yoel has boasted that he will provide the Get. We say: Bring it On.

Yoel Weiss: Be a Mensch. Give your wife a Get, with no strings attached. May we be privileged to witness this event."

The language seems clear that she is admitting the "beit din" "dayanim" were fake and that she is now "convening a gathering of rabbis" who are not the signors of the so-called beit din documents supposedly sent to Yoeli. This is a complete disregard of Yoelis offer made right from the get-go. It has to be the same beit din dayanim showing they are real and this wasn't a farce by Rivky Stein and her cohorts. Suddenly in her new statement she is demanding that Yoeli drop the condition this was always based on.

Stein's above statement is also soliciting as many people to show up to that address to support her. I think it is vital for Yoeli to also bring a large contingent supporting him there tomorrow (with recording equipment.)

[The original post on her facebook also said "Please note that if Yoel is playing games, it might be necessary to relocate to A SECOND location just 5 blocks away at 1278 E 77nd Street." This sentence was edited off [but is still visible if you click the "EDITED" link on top of the post.]

If the original beit din was a fake, then even she will have to admit he is under no requirement to give a Get as no beit din has been requested to give a Get or ordered him to. He is still entitled to have a beis din case between him and her to determine if a Get is warranted. A husband is not under any halachic requirement to give a Get unless and until a beis din orders as such after hearing testimony from both sides and considering the facts and determining the halacha based on that. And that certainly takes quite some time for a beis din to make a determination. Of course Stein is entitled to have a beis din case with Weiss once a beis din is agreed upon per halacha

Seminary Scandal: Do warning bells ring when you read this student's praise of Peninim Seminary/

The following is an excerpt from an article from the blog Where What and When - Time  To Think About Seminary    which deals with issues in chosing a seminary. The excerpt below is about the Peninim Seminary when it was run by Meisels. Do you find anything upsetting about what she says? Or perhaps it is just because Meisels perverted the good but there is nothing inherently wrong about the interaction of the staff with the students.

January 22, 2014

  Tzipora who attended Peninim Seminary and is leaving in a couple of days to go to shana bet (a second year), was very happy to share her experience with me. I was astounded by her enthusiasm. “It was really amazing. It was the best year of my life so far,” Tzipora says. “The principal and all the teachers really care about the girls. They put the needs of the girls first above everything else. For example, there was a big emphasis on the hashkafa behind the halachos of tznius. Many girls came to seminary with skirts that were not very tzniusdik. After being there for a while, and absorbing the hashkafos of the teachers, many girls wanted to wear skirts that met halachic guidelines. In order to make it easier for girls to follow through on their new commitment to higher standards of tznius, Rabbi Meisels set up a program; if a girl turns in a skirt that is not so tzniusdik, he will give her money to buy a new skirt.”

  Peninim makes it a priority that each girl creates a strong connection with members of the staff. “Becoming close to a mentor was important to me,” says Tzipopra , “and the seminary went out of its way to see that no one falls through the cracks. In the middle of the year the staff goes through all the girls, and makes sure that everybody has a connection to some teacher or the principal. Girls often go to the homes of the teachers for Shabbos meals or to sleep over.

  Tzipora explains Peninim’s focus on hashkafa. “There is no homework, and most of the classes are discussions about what we can learn from the sources and apply to our own lives.” Tzipora  marvels, “We spent a whole month learning about the meraglim and how to apply the lessons of the meraglim to our own lives. The teachers welcome questions and will stay after class as long as necessary to answer all the girls to their satisfaction.”

Tisha B'Av: Highly Recommended Videos

Open Orthodoxy and the Rebirth of the Conservative Movement

Cross Currents by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer 

Cross-Currents readership is all too familiar with discussion about Open Orthodoxy; every nook and cranny of Open Orthodoxy could be explored with a critical eye through Cross-Currents’ numerous articles on the subject, spanning a lengthy period of time.

Once the major issues of Open Orthodoxy had been fully brought to the table, it was decided that our focus and energy should be directed elsewhere, as the Orthodox public assumedly had been presented with enough information about Open Orthodoxy to be well-informed, if not saturated. More discussion about Open Orthodoxy seemed moot, and it was hoped and supposed that Open Orthodox leadership would constructively utilize the criticisms to recalibrate the movement’s trajectory onto a more normative path.

However, we were dead wrong, for as we turned our attention away, the nature and magnitude of the challenges presented by Open Orthodoxy increased beyond imagination. Over the past several months, the intellectual leadership of Open Orthodoxy openly embraced highly problematic positions regarding the origins of Torah She-b’al Peh; Open Orthodox rabbis around the United States engaged in new, more radical types of interfaith and interdenominational endeavors that could make one’s hair stand on end; and much more.

It was decided, as per the advice of senior rabbinic authorities, to issue a comprehensive article on the above recent and current issues, feeling that the larger Orthodox public must be aware of these startling developments, as Orthodoxy is now truly at a crossroads. This article would be intended for hard-copy journal publication, and would include a composite of all of the issues to consider, new and old. In light of the fact that Open Orthodoxy is successfully and rapidly placing its graduating rabbis in Orthodox shuls and schools across the country, bringing a different type of Orthodoxy to communities heretofore unfamiliar with it, and in light of the currently unfolding nature of several of the critical issues at hand, it was decided to release the article early as an online publication. [...]

Please read this article and consider the very potential far-reaching ramifications of the recent actions and current path of Open Orthodoxy

The Wolmark and Epstein Mamzerus Problem

Guest Post:
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 מעושים   גיטין 

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 anאשת 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

Moral clarity in Gaza by Charles Krauthammer

Washington Post  Israel accepts an Egyptian-proposed Gaza cease-fire; Hamas keeps firing. Hamas deliberately aims rockets at civilians; Israel painstakingly tries to avoid them, actually telephoning civilians in the area and dropping warning charges, so-called roof knocking.

“Here’s the difference between us,” explains the Israeli prime minister. “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d’etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.

Apologists for Hamas attribute the blood lust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza. 

And there was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.

The whole idea was to establish the model for two states living peacefully and productively side by side. No one seems to remember that, simultaneous with the Gaza withdrawal, Israel dismantled four smaller settlements in the northern West Bank as a clear signal of Israel’s desire to leave the West Bank as well and thus achieve an amicable two-state solution.

This is not ancient history. This was nine years ago. [...]

In Defense of Zionism by Michael Oren

Wall Street Journal   Mr. Oren was Israel's ambassador to the U.S. from 2009 to 2013. He holds the chair in international diplomacy at IDC Herzliya in Israel and is a fellow at the Atlantic Council. His books include "Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East" and "Power, Faith, and Fantasy: America in the Middle East, 1776 to the Present."

 They come from every corner of the country—investment bankers, farmers, computer geeks, jazz drummers, botany professors, car mechanics—leaving their jobs and their families. They put on uniforms that are invariably too tight or too baggy, sign out their gear and guns. Then, scrambling onto military vehicles, 70,000 reservists—women and men—join the young conscripts of what is proportionally the world's largest citizen army. They all know that some of them will return maimed or not at all. And yet, without hesitation or (for the most part) complaint, proudly responding to the call-up, Israelis stand ready to defend their nation. They risk their lives for an idea.

The idea is Zionism. It is the belief that the Jewish people should have their own sovereign state in the Land of Israel. Though founded less than 150 years ago, the Zionist movement sprung from a 4,000-year-long bond between the Jewish people and its historic homeland, an attachment sustained throughout 20 centuries of exile. This is why Zionism achieved its goals and remains relevant and rigorous today. It is why citizens of Israel—the state that Zionism created—willingly take up arms. They believe their idea is worth fighting for.

Yet Zionism, arguably more than any other contemporary ideology, is demonized. "All Zionists are legitimate targets everywhere in the world!" declared a banner recently paraded by anti-Israel protesters in Denmark. "Dogs are allowed in this establishment but Zionists are not under any circumstances," warned a sign in the window of a Belgian cafe. A Jewish demonstrator in Iceland was accosted and told, "You Zionist pig, I'm going to behead you."

In certain academic and media circles, Zionism is synonymous with colonialism and imperialism. Critics on the radical right and left have likened it to racism or, worse, Nazism. And that is in the West. In the Middle East, Zionism is the ultimate abomination—the product of a Holocaust that many in the region deny ever happened while maintaining nevertheless that the Zionists deserved it.

What is it about Zionism that elicits such loathing? After all, the longing of a dispersed people for a state of their own cannot possibly be so repugnant, especially after that people endured centuries of massacres and expulsions, culminating in history's largest mass murder. Perhaps revulsion toward Zionism stems from its unusual blend of national identity, religion and loyalty to a land. Japan offers the closest parallel, but despite its rapacious past, Japanese nationalism doesn't evoke the abhorrence aroused by Zionism.[...]

But not all of Zionism's critics are bigoted, and not a few of them are Jewish. For a growing number of progressive Jews, Zionism is too militantly nationalist, while for many ultra-Orthodox Jews, the movement is insufficiently pious—even heretical. How can an idea so universally reviled retain its legitimacy, much less lay claim to success?

The answer is simple: Zionism worked. The chances were infinitesimal that a scattered national group could be assembled from some 70 countries into a sliver-sized territory shorn of resources and rich in adversaries and somehow survive, much less prosper. The odds that those immigrants would forge a national identity capable of producing a vibrant literature, pace-setting arts and six of the world's leading universities approximated zero.[...]

Seminary Scandal: Israeli Beis Din Correspondence - Rav Aharaon Feldman letter of July 31

Update:  See response of Israeli Beis Din
This is the first of a series of private correspondence of the Israeli Beis Din that I plan to publish  - in the actual words of the participants - in the matter of the Seminary Scandal. The first letter consists of accusations against the Israeli Beis sent by Rav Aharon Feldman on July 31 2014 to the Israeli Beis Din. 

The next posts will provide the Israeli Beis Din's very strong response against the accusations of Rav Feldman  and in addition their grievances against the Chicago Beis Din. The differences between the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din is not as clear cut as has been presented up until now. In short I will show the issue from the point of view of the Israeli Beis Din

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

Rabosai,

The Chilul Hashem r.l. is spreading; people have lost their emunas chachomim; I just heard of two girls who went off the derech because of this affair. We have to get the Chicago BD to rescind their letter. The only way to do this is to have a joint BD listen to the accusations. Is Rav Shafran willing to do this? They are not at present but I think I can convince them. bedieved I have the following:suggestion. if I get the accusers to come together, will Rav Shafran agree to listen to them bemoshav tlasa? This will not stop the effect of the CBD’s letter, but at least it will stop the charges against you that you refused to listen to the accusers. Would Sunday night be OK for this?

I was surprised that Rabbi Malinowitz said (as I understood him) at our conference call that I never apprised the BD that there are serious accusations. Rav Malinowitz asked me at that time (and so I immediately wrote myself a note, which I have) to supply the BD with the names of the accusers. Yet a psak was given out without this. I am sure there is a good reason for this, but it certainly needs an explanation, not a denial that it ever happened..

Furthermore, you never apologized for having said publicly that you asked the CBD many times to supply you with information about the accusations and they did not. You could have explained this was a misunderstanding but to insist that you did contact them when R. Zev Cohen claimed so forcefully that you did not (I don’t think a person like R.. Zev Cohen would be able to lie in this manner), made them lose trust in you. It would help if you would apologize to them for this.

Aharon Feldman

Understanding the Seminary Scandal: Britain’s Crime of Complicity With the Savile Sex Abuse Scandal

 Updated below August 1 to include Yeramiel Lopins response
The recent scandal of sexual abuse/seduction by the head of 4 seminaries has produced two different responses in the two beis dins involved. The Chicago Beis Din (CBD) that initially investigated the claims declared the seminaries too dangerous at the present time for girls to attend. 1rst letter of CBD and IBD  On the other hand the Israeli Beis Din (IBD) that is involved stated categorically - even before they actually conducted an investigation - that the schools were safe because Meisels had been removed from the seminaries.   2nd letter of IBD July 25

What is their point of disagreement? In both case we have very intelligent and learned men who care about the welfare of others. In order to understand this better I suggest you first read the following article that appeared in the New York Times about the sickening child abuse scandal in England and then continue reading here.

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

The fundamental issues seems to be 1) is it better overall if we focus on saving the seminaries and their staffs from being destroyed by this scandal and accept that the scandal was entirely caused by one person who has since been removed or 2) do we focus on maximally protecting the girls even if it means destroying the seminaries and consider why this happened and what is the best way to ensure it doesn't happen in the future.

The IBD seems to accept 1) - that the saving of the seminaries is their priority. They thus view that the problem was caused entirely by Meisels' deviancy. By getting rid of Meisels there is no danger to the girls. However since the scandal has severely damaged the schools and the reputation of the girls who attended them. Therefore they have prohibited talking about the scandal and telling everyone to trust them to take care of any and all issues dealing with the schools. Thus they insist the problem has been properly taken care of and the seminaries should continue as in the past. This is clear from the two letters they have issued so far.

In contrast the CBD seems to accept 2). They were shocked by the testimony of degeneracy they heard. They are primarily concerned about the girls - the ones who have been molested/seduced and the girls who are planning on going there.  They don't understand how even the slightest risk can be taken with the girls and therefore they have stated that the seminaries can not be considered safe places until it is guaranteed that this won't be able to happen again. They have heard that some of the staff was aware or at least had good reason to suspect what Meisels was doing wrong - and yet did nothing to stop it. (See letter of July 30, 2014).  What protocols are in place now that will prevent even passive complicity? It is clear from the British and other sex abuse scandals that people tolerate horrible crimes - in order to protect their parnossa, careers or the reputation of their institutions or simply to avoid embarrassment. The CBD is well aware of this and knows that getting rid of Meisels is only the first step - not the final step to protect the girls. Until all safeguards are in place - girls should not leave the safety of their families and pay $25,000 for an unprotected year in Israel.

update August 1 -  There is a significant problem of transparency in the conduct of both the CBD and IBD. I would suggest the following information be made public in order to regain the trust of parents and the Orthodox World.

1) It needs to be acknowledged publicy by both the IBD and CBD that they disagree  regarding not only fact findings but that they have different goals which need to be stated. 2) CBD needs to provide more specific evidence concerning the extent and type of teacher collaboration or silence 3) What safeguards does the CBD require before they remove their caution and financial blockade 4) A clear statement that they have not authorized IBD to replace them 5) A clear statement of the role of Rav Feldman i.e., whose side is he on 6) Approximate number of victim - i.e., how serious was the problem. and did it involve only seduction? 7) Are criminal charges and/or civil lawsuits  envisioned 8) It needs to be stated clearly that Meisels is guilty as charged by both IBD and CBD. It realy  is not clear that the IBD agrees that he is guilty as charged 9) Is Meisels required to pay for therapy and admit guilt? 10) Why did the CBD apparently renege on their promise to withdraw their caution if this sale went through? 11) What program is in place to ensure it doesn't happen at any seminary? 12) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the value of spending a year in Israel away from family and spending $25,000 to accomplish it 13) Serious discussion needs to be done regarding the problem of having males run a female school or even teaching there.

Update: August 1 - Response of Yerachmiel Lopin from FrumFollies See also Update on the Meisels Seminaries

Yerachmiel Lopin 

1. Sources close to Chicago say they are adamant that they never authorized IBD to take over the case. But were hoping those rabbonim as individuals would assist in pressuring Meisels out and securing an honest sale to another. Moreover, I defy anyone to get R. Feldman or the IBD to produce a piece of paper showing otherwise. these are all professional and experienced dayanim who know enough to put such things in writing.

2. The IBD has never stated that the seminaries are under new ownership. Thus Chicago has every reason not to believe enough has changed to make the seminaries safe, especially since other staff knew about the abuse and rebuffed students who complained about it. This i also say on my own authority talking to talmidot from those sems.

3. Without proof of staff changes, you will forever have defensive staff who will want to claim Meisels left because of pressure, not because of his disgusting and abusive conduct. Others will not be committed to change things because advocating a tikkun means admitting a previous problem. The IBD has bolstered that mentality because they are claiming the seminaries were, are and will be wonderful, kosher places. With such a psak, naturally the attitude will be, "if it aint broke, don't fix it."

4. The most bizarre thing about IBD psak #2 is that they never heard both sides. They only talked to the administrators and select staff, not to any of the victims. Moreover, R. Feldman is listed as the representative of the other side. However, not one of the victims who went to the Chicago Beis Din ever authorized R. Feldman to act on their behalf with IBD. I say this on the basis of contact with some of the victims. They are all in touch with each other and are astounded that Rav Feldman claims they authorized him. It is true that R. Zev Cohen of the CBD shared the investigation to a whole group of senior rabbonim at a closed-door session at an annual meeting of rabbonim involved in Torah Umesorah. Rav Feldman offered to help because his 25 years living in EY made him familiar local rabbonim. Next thing they know he helped stage a seeming transfer to an IBD of the entire case.

5. Now, let us imagine that R. Feldman actually had authorization from victims. So what did he say in the sessions of IBD? NOTHING. The IBD does not even claim they interviewed him re the stories of the victims. Nor will Rav  Feldman claim he spoke during the inquiry stage of the IBD. What ever happened to the idea that Beis Din listens to two sides.

6. The IBD psak is worthless on procedural grounds. They never conducted the kind of inquiry that justifies their conclusion.

7. They say nothing about Meisels innocence or guilt. Given how they addressed the conduct of other staff, they could practically have also given Meisels a mehadrin teudah. Yet they said nothing, neither that he is guilty or innocent.

8. The IBD psak has left the way open for Meisels to eventually return claiming he is a victim of a bilbul + Chicago kanois and again sexually exploit students.

9. Those defending IBD should obtain proof from R. Feldman that he has written proof of delegation by the victims or CBD and proof that he opened his mouth at IBD and actually represented the reports of the victims of abuse that spoke to CBD.

אלו דברים שאין להם שיעור חמרות לה"ר ורכילות ותירוצים בעד מוסדותיהם
ופרנסתם נגד הנזוקין. אלו דברים שאוכלים פירותיהם בעוה"ז ועונשם קימת
לעוה"ב

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

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

NY Times    The Westminster inquiry will investigate not just the rape and assault of children at group homes going back decades but also accusations that child abuse by politicians and other public figures was deliberately covered up or even facilitated by members of the elite. The same Parliament has, it seems, spent 30 years failing to catch the pedophiles in its own house. Before the inquiry was even announced, it emerged that 114 files concerning allegations of abuse against children involving senior political figures had mysteriously disappeared. 

The tradition of the British establishment’s looking after its own is only now understood to its full and chilling extent.

In Britain in 2014, it is no longer a shock to see the face of a once beloved celebrity or well-known politician on the news in connection with pedophilia. During the past two years, the press has been peppered with reports of allegations and prosecutions of all manner of public figures, from politicians and pop stars to television hosts and senior staff members at exclusive private schools. 

The saga began in 2012 when it was revealed that Jimmy Savile, a former children’s television host and charity campaigner who died in 2011, had raped and sexually assaulted hundreds of children. This was a seismic event: A BBC staple, Mr. Savile was an entertainer with the household currency and cultural centrality of Johnny Carson or Oprah Winfrey.

Worse, it became clear that a large number of people in show business knew about this abuse and did nothing because of Mr. Savile’s power and prestige. The entertainer, who was a friend of Margaret Thatcher, used his status to gain access to vulnerable young people in schools and even hospitals.[...]

U.N. condemns Israel, U.S. for not sharing Iron Dome with Hamas

Washington Times

There is a strong possibility that international law has been violated, in a manner that could amount to war crimes,” she said, Breitbart reported.

The U.N. group listed among its reasons for making that claim that Israel outright refused to share its Iron Dome with the “governing authority” of Gaza — which is Hamas, Breitbart reported. Ms. Pillay also condemned the United States for helping to fund the Iron Dome for Israel, but not granting any such accommodations to those in Gaza.

“No such protection has been provided to Gazans against the shelling,” she said, Breitbart reported.

מכתב גלוי לראשי הישיבות: התורה מגנה רק כשלא מדובר בבין הזמנים?

Kikar HaShabat

אם לא יחול שינוי דרסטי, בשבוע הבא נצום בתשעה באב, ולאחר מכן יצאו בחורי הישיבות לחופשת בין הזמנים. אם לא יחול שינוי דרסטי, באותם ימים חיילי צה"ל עדיין יילחמו ויחרפו נפשם בעזה.

בימים האחרונים אנחנו שומעים הצהרות חלקיות, חלקי אמירות ודיונים מורכבים על הארכת זמן קיץ ודחיית החופשה המסורתית. יכול להיות שראשי הישיבות ספונים יותר מדי בבית המדרש ולא מודעים לאירועים מבחוץ. ובכן, ב"ה יש בעם ישראל אחדות שלא נראתה שנים רבות. עם ישראל כולו (תמיד יש שוליים יוצאים מן הכלל) מאוחד בצדקת המבצע. תפילות מכל המגזרים עושות את שלהן, וניסים גדולים מתרחשים כל יום, גם בעורף וגם בעזה.

גם הציבור החרדי שותף, בדרכו, לכל האירועים ואפילו מקבל נקודות זכות נדירות בתקשורת החילונית. אין ספק שהאחדות, התורה בבתי המדרשות, העבודה – התפילה של תינוקות של בית רבן, גברים ונשים, וגמילות החסדים המדהימה שיש בתקופה האחרונה מקיימים את העולם, נותנים את אותותיהם ומשפיעים על היושב במרומים המעטיר עלינו טוב.

ומה עלול לקרות בשבוע הבא?

 

האם נראה בחורי ישיבה עוזבים – בהסכמה שבשתיקה או באמירה רפה על חשיבות הלימוד בימים אלו – את היכלי הישיבה? הרי מתחילת "ממשלת השמד" אנו שומעים השכם והערב כי יושבי בית המדרש שותפים מלאים בהגנה על ארץ ישראל, ובלעדיהם אין תקומה למדינת ישראל. הייתכן, היעלה על הדעת, האם יש ספק, כי אי אפשר לעזוב מערכה באמצע? הייתכן כי "התורה מגנא ומצלא" רק עד מוצאי תשעה באב, ואחר כך ינטשו את המערכה?

Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss:The Jewish Press withdraws its support for Rivky Stein's "beit din"

Update by RaP August 1:

It can now be confirmed that The Jewish Press was NOT making a mistake when it withdrew the name of Yoel Weiss from its "seruv listing" column on its previous "Family Issues" page. The latest Friday, August 1st, 2014 edition of The Jewish Press on Page F1, has once again NOT published the name of Yoel Weiss on its "SERUV LISTING" confirming last week's report that they had therefore withdrawn their recognition of Rivky Stein's "Beit Din Zedek of Marine Park and Mill Basin" that presumably they too have concluded is either a fraudulent set-up or does not exist, or both! It remains to be seen if The Jewish Press will issue an explanation and hopefully an apology to Yoel Weiss and his family that has been shamed needlessly and admit it was duped by Rivky Stein and by whoever sent them the name of the fake "beit din"!

Guest post by RaP

Rivky Stein loses credibility by the day. The pro-Aguna organization ORA has disassociated itself from Rivky Stein's "beit din" then conflicting posts have stated that, first on Rivky Stein's page that her self-appointed "beit din" address is at "72nd" (also happens to be the same street address as a Chabad house there) while someone on this blog has stated that they have called that Chabad house and they deny a connection with any "beit din" on its premises! Truly mystifying self-contradicting information that awaits further clarification!

Now comes The Jewish Press which for many weeks has added the name of Yoel Weiss to its "SERUV LISTING" -- that is up until the Friday 18 July, 2014 edition (page F1), while the latest edition of The Jewish Press, the Friday July 25, 2014 edition (page F1) has DROPPED the name of Yoel Weiss from that same "SERUV LISTING" column! Why?

What was it that has made The Jewish Press do that? After all, they have been at the forefront of fighting for the rights of Agunas against recalcitrant husbands for decades, essentially pioneering the use of Jewish media as a weapon to publicly shame and thereby force stubborn husbands into coming to genuine batei din and giving their wives a get.

The Jewish Press does not mince words. Every week, on its "F1" "FAMILY PAGE, Naomi Mauer and Shandee Fuchs, Editors" starts with a "warning": "Attention Readers! this section contains sensitive topics and should be monitored"

and continues:

"SERUV LISTING

The names below are Mesarev Ledin or have been Harkhakot D'Rabbeinu Tam [sic].

A Beth Din has issued a seruv against each person listed below for a) withholding a Get upon being order [sic] to grant one, b) refusing to appear before a Beth Din in matters pertaining to a Get, or C) otherwise failing to follow the order of a Beth Din in matters pertaining to a Get. For the Halachot [sic] regarding how one should treat a person who is Mesarev Ledin, please consult a competent Orthodox [sic] rabbi."

[then in the July 18th, 2014 edition it lists nine names and the batei din that are dealing with them. At the bottom of the lists it states:]

"YOEL WEISS of Brooklyn, New York, issued by Beit Din Zedek of Marine Park and Mill Basin, March 2014"

However, the latest July 25, 2014 edition of The Jewish Press DROPS that last name and there is absolutely no mention of either "Yoel Weiss" or the so-called "Beit Din Zedek of Marine Park and Mill Basin"!!

What does that mean? Is The Jewish Press now also making a "typological error" and inadvertently leaving out that information that it has been posting for a while now? Of course, waiting another week will tell if that was a "mistake" of if now even a famous pro-Aguna advocate like The Jewish Press has added its tacit admission of being fooled and duped by printing things based on falsified information by retracting the mention of the name "Yoel Weiss" and of a "beit din" and its actions that does not exist in the real world. If so, will The Jewish Press also issue an explanation as well as an apology? Hopefully!

Stay tuned, time will tell, and it will not all that long either!

Exodus: Why Europe's Jews Are Fleeing Once Again

Newsweek   The mob howled for vengeance, the missiles raining down on the synagogue walls as the worshippers huddled inside. It was a scene from Europe in the 1930s – except this was eastern Paris on the evening of July 13th, 2014.

Thousands had gathered to demonstrate against the Israeli bombardment of Gaza. But the protest soon turned violent – and against Jews in general. One of those trapped told Israeli television that the streets outside were “like an intifada”, the Palestinian uprising against Israeli occupation. 

Some of the trapped Jews fought their way out as the riot police dispersed the crowd. Manuel Valls, the French Prime Minister, condemned the attack in “the strongest possible terms”, while Joel Mergei, a community leader, said he was “profoundly shocked and revolted”. The words had no effect. Two weeks later, 400 protesters attacked a synagogue and Jewish-owned businesses in Sarcelles, in the north of Paris, shouting “Death to the Jews”. Posters had even advertised the raid in advance, like the pogroms of Tsarist Russia.

France has suffered the worst violence, but anti-Semitism is spiking across Europe, fuelled by the war in Gaza. In Britain, the Community Security Trust (CST) says there were around 100 anti-Semitic incidents in July, double the usual  number. The CST has issued a security alert for Jewish institutions. In Berlin a crowd of anti-Israel protesters had to be prevented from attacking a synagogue. In Liege, Belgium, a café owner put up a sign saying dogs were welcome, but Jews were not allowed.

Yet for many French and European Jews, the violence comes as no surprise. Seventy years after the Holocaust, from Amiens to Athens, the world’s oldest hatred flourishes anew. For some, opposition to Israeli policies is now a justification for open hatred of Jews – even though many Jews are strongly opposed to Israel’s rightward lurch, and support the establishment of a Palestinian state.[....]

Motti Elon is honored speaker: Dealing with sexual predators in our neighborhoods.

 JPost - Elon convicted of sex crimes agains minors

The notice below highlights a major problem. What do you do with a child molester/sexual predator and how do you interact with him on a daily basis. What honor can be given and what access to children and women? 

This applies to people such as Dovid Weinberger, Elimelech Meisels, Mordechai Tendler, etc etc. Once upon a time when such crimes were either swept under the rug or the perpetrator banished to someone else's neighborhood - not much thought was given to this problem - because it officially didn't exist. However with the major change in the last few years, we now have sexual predators who are highly talented, personable and well known - in our neighborhoods - even as next door neighbors. There is no mesora for how to deal with these child rapists, adulterers and predators. What should be done? In addition how do you react to people such as Rabbi Druckman who insist on giving honor to predators such as Motti Elon and/or insist against clear evidence that they are innocent?

update:  Hannah @AMotherInIsrael 

I took the picture and posted it on my blog. Not sure why it appears here without credit or link. 

From A Mother In Israel