Todros Grynhaus found guilty of all seven charges of sexual assault

Jewish Chronicle     [This is a historic moment for British Jews who are about 10 years behind the rest of the world in dealing with abuse. ]

  [I have received a copy of an 8 page letter by an insider that describes in great detail allegations of his disgusting behavior -  at this point I am not sure whether to publish excerpts.  ] 

Todros Grynhaus was convicted on all seven charges

A Jewish teacher turned businessman is facing a ''substantial'' jail sentence after being found guilty of seven sex abuse charges on Tuesday. 

Todros Grynhaus, 50, was convicted of five counts of indecent assault and two counts of sexual assault against the girls when they were aged around 14 and 15. 

Grynhaus, a prominent member of the Charedi community in Salford, was accused of a course of conduct against the two alleged victims over a number of years which involved touching them inappropriately and forcing himself on them. 

He denied the allegations, saying he was the victim of a “revenge plot” and that the girls, now adult women, were lying.

But he was convicted after a two-week trial at Manchester Crown Court.

Wearing glasses and dressed in a black suit with open-collar white shirt, Grynhaus showed no emotion as he was unanimously found guilty of three charges of indecent assault, and of the four other charges by a majority verdict of 10-2.[...]

Rav Dovid Eidensohn Shiur #8 Telephone Conference – More on Negation of Marriage - Wed 9:30 p.m.

Shiur #8 Telephone Conference – More on Negation of Marriage  because of a Blemish

Wed 9:30 PM – Call 605-562-3130 then enter code 411161#

1.       We discussed in Shiur #7 last week that HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein is lenient but many Gedolim are strict about whether a major blemish negates a marriage. Today we want to look into this further.

2.       Gemora Kesubose 57b -  A woman is an Aruso, married to a man, but stays in her father’s house until the Chupa, when she becomes a NISUO, fully married.  If it is discovered that the Arusa has a major blemish, the marriage is negated. See Rashi there.

3.       This would seem to be a proof to Reb Moshe that a serious blemish can negate a marriage. However, this is only about an Arusa, but perhaps once someone has Chupah the conditions for negating marriage are themselves negated, as we discussed last week at length. See Shulchan Aruch EH 38:35,36 and Yevomose 107. A pious Jew does not want to have relations with a woman without marriage, and he cancels his conditions.

4.       Tosfose Kesubose 72b ד"ה על מנת  writes that even though the gemora says that a blemish can negate the marriage, the gemora in Kesubose 73b brings two opinions. One is that the woman’s marriage is negated and turns into a doubtful marriage, and she needs a GET. The other opinion is that the Torah permits her, but the rabbis require a GET. The Rosh 72b says that the opinion that it is a doubt is a sin diorayso to remarry without a GET and Tosfose Kesubos 72b  ד:ה על מנת says the same thing.

5.       If so, a marriage negated can still require a GET. Bais HaLevi and Ain Yitschok disagree with Reb Moshe  as he quotes in Igeres Moshe EH I:79:1. Ayin Yitschok of the Kovneh Rov I:34:7:44 quotes those who forbid her remarriage as the Chavass Yoir, Besomim Rosh, Rashbatz and Shevuse Yaacov. Thus, the gemora and the many authorities who forbid the remarriage based on a blemish would prevent a woman from remarrying even if her husband has a major blemish, even if there is a possibility that the marriage is negated, as is taught in Kesubose 73b.

6.       The gemora Kesubose 73b says that a woman who has a blemish of nedorim that a husband doesn’t tolerate, and therefore by the Torah the marriage is negated as the husband did not know this before he married her, nonetheless, Rabo holds that she needs a GET by rabbinical law. Rovo says that there is a doubt in the Torah itself if she needs a GET in such a case. Thus, even if the marriage is blemished, she needs a GET.

7.       Reb Yosef ben Leib considered the rebbe of the Bais Yosef writes in volume II:19:3 that the custom of rabbis is when rabbis argue about if a woman can remarry that even if a majority of rabbis permit her to remarry, if a minority forbid it, we are stringent and the woman cannot remarry. In a case of a person with a blemish, the majority of rabbis forbid a woman to remarry, and in that case, surely the woman has a problem remarrying.

8.       Tosfose there in Kesubose 72b says that some blemishes require a GET and some do not. Tosfose mentions the blemish of EILENUSE [whereby a woman can have biah but cannot have children, as she has a blemish in her entire system and is not like other women] does not need a GET. But other blemishes do not free the woman without a GET.

9.       Some rishonim hold that even when the husband did not know that she is an Eilunes, and he discovers that she is, even though this is a serious blemish, she needs a GET.

10.   Rambam Ishuse 4:10 – If one makes kiddushin whether the man is a Serise Chamo or Seris Odom, and so with an Eilenuse who is married with Kiddushin [Erusin] these are complete marriages [the couple is married by Torah law].

11.   Magid Mishneh quotes on the above Rambam that Rabbeinu Tam ruled that an Eilunes who was not known to be one and married with Erusin, that she needs a GET.

12.   Rambam Ishus 24:2 “One who marries a woman and does not know her blemish and she turns out to be an Eilunes, she does not get a Kesubo nor does she get the Conditions of a Kesubo, but extra gifts from the husband to his wife she does keep.”

13.   Rambam ISHUS 7:8 One who makes kiddushin [erusin] to a woman, and it is discovered that she has a blemish that render a woman unfit or one of the oaths that she made renders her unfit, and afterwards he discovers that she has this blemish, the marriage is a doubt if it is negated [because he did not make a clear condition].”

14.   From this we see that if the husband or wife did not make a clear condition and then it is discovered that they have a bad blemish, the marriage is a doubt, maybe it is negated, maybe not, and she needs a GET and without it she cannot marry.

15.   The Magid Mishneh explains that the Rambam paskens like Rovo that if it is discovered after the Kiddushin that the woman has a bad blemish it is a doubt and she requires a GET to remarry. The gemora there says clearly that she needs a GET if no specific condition was made to negate the marriage if she had this problem.

16.   This again is a proof that even in serious blemishes we don’t allow the woman to remarry without a GET, and many poskim hold like that, not like Reb Moshe.

17.   Rambam rules Ishuse 7:23 that if a man made a condition in Erusin that he did not want a wife with certain blemishes, and the wife had them, the marriage is negated. But if afterwards  he married her with Chupah or took her to his house and they were together and then he did not make a condition, the woman is married and she needs a GET. Thus, even if there is proof that Erusin is negated by a blemish, if there is Nisuin the conditions may be negated and the woman needs a GET. Thus all people who want to negate a marriage because of a blemish, if they did not make a clear condition before the Chupa, they are married and the wife needs a GET. How does this agree with Reb Moshe’s lenient negation of marriages, that seem to mean even if they were married a few years and maybe even if they had children, the marriage is negated?

18.   The Meiri Kesubose 72b D “H “One who marries a woman, etc.” says that when a man marries a woman who has the blemishes of oaths that men don’t tolerate, and he did not know about them, the marriage is negated and no GET is needed. This is a proof to Reb Moshe that a strong blemish negates the marriage.

19.   Reb Moshe and Chelkas Mechokake EH 39:9 say that the woman must immediately leave the marriage if she discovers a major blemish in the husband. But how do we know that she did leave immediately?

20.   Thus, the issue of a blemish to negate a marriage has various aspects and opinions. The majority who discuss this do not permit the woman to remarry without a GET. Then we have the opinion of Tosfose Kesubose 72b that it may depend on the level of blemish. If so, who can determine what the thoughts of Chazal were in considering this?

Blu Greenberg seeks to overthrow Rabbeinu Tam's views of divorce laws

JPost     [This article is an embarrassment of journalistic ignorance and biased reporting - presenting the feminist view of halacha i.e., the Torah as given by Blu Greenberg]

According to Blu Greenberg, a visionary leader of Jewish Orthodox Feminism and co-founder of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance (JOFA), “where there’s a rabbinic will, there’s a halachic way.”

At the forefront of her struggle today, which is gaining wide-spread rabbinic support, is to solve the issue of women with recalcitrant husbands who refuse to grant their wives a “get” – a Jewish divorce document.

A study done by Prof. Ruth Halperin-Kaddari, director of the Rackman Center for the Advancement of the Status of Women at Bar-Ilan University’s Law Faculty, found that one out of every three women in rabbinic courts in Israel suffers from get abuse, when the husband threatens to withhold the get, cited Greenberg, who sat down with The Jerusalem Post to discuss Orthodox feminism.

The problem, she said, stems largely from the attitude of the 10th-century halachic authority, Rabbeinu Tam. His hard-line approach is what paved the way for stringent rulings to this day, according to Greenberg. At the time, the principle of a husband’s absolute right over his wife was deemed inviolable and many rabbis over the years, and still today, understood that being faithful to halacha – as it is interpreted in their eyes – was more important than any given woman’s particular situation.

This attitude of being stringent in the cases of agunot, Jewish women who are “chained” to their marriage, is something she calls “horrific.” [...]

Rabbi Simcha Krauss, Rabbi Yosef Blau and Rabbi Yehuda Warburg have been operating the International Beit Din, a rabbinical court dealing with cases of recalcitrant husbands worldwide. The court has been operational for only a few months and has already resolved some 20 cases.

The International Beit Din utilizes two halachic tools to resolve cases. The first is by declaring the witnesses from the wedding not kosher. The second option is declaring that there was a preexisting flaw in the husband that was not disclosed to the woman prior to the wedding, and therefore the marriage was a mistake.

Both of these tools are halachically acceptable and used by other rabbinic courts around the world, but this court is interpreting cases with wider latitude, making it their mission to find the flaws that can provide the halachic loopholes to apply them.

Other courts err on the side of caution, according to Greenberg, and women are hurt in the process. [...]

4 Cancer Charities in F.T.C. Fraud Case allegedly spent more than $187 million in donations on personal expenses

NY Times     The Federal Trade Commission and all 50 states on Tuesday accused four cancer charities of being “sham charities,” charging that the groups had deceived donors and spent more than $187 million in donations on personal expenses, in one of the largest charity fraud cases ever.

In soliciting donations through telemarketing calls and direct-mail, the F.T.C. complaint says, the charities described specific uses for the money they solicited, like transporting patients to and from chemotherapy or purchasing pain medication for children. “These were lies,” the complaint says, and the money went to the people running the charities for expenses like gym memberships, college tuition and dating website subscriptions. “Donations have enriched a small group of individuals.”

The charities — the Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services, Children’s Cancer Fund of America and the Breast Cancer Society — were created and controlled by the same network of people and led by James Reynolds Sr., the F.T.C. says. [...]

According to the complaint, Mr. Reynolds devised the fund-raising scheme in 1987 and recruited his son, friends and members of his church congregation to participate in the years that followed. The F.T.C.’s finding of $187 million in misspent donations reflects the charities’ activity from 2008 to 2012. In that time, the charities spent less than 3 percent of donations on cancer patients. [...]

Mark Hammond, secretary of state for South Carolina, said that the revelations were a reminder: “Be vigilant when giving to charity.”

Bamidbar - Shavuot 75 - The Positive and Negative of In-group loyalty by Allan Katz

 Guest post by Allan Katz

The Book of Numbers begins with God's commandment to take a new census of the Israelites as they were about to enter the land of Israel. A census was needed to prepare for the military campaign and know how many people were eligible to receive a portion in the land according to their tribes. Unlike previous censuses, this census counted the people according to their tribes. It took place after the building of the sanctuary – mishkan, a year after leaving Egypt.

The literal reading of take a census - ' S'ooh '- is elevate the heads of the assembly of the children of Israel. It is forbidden to count people, so a census was taken by counting half-shekel contributions made by the people for the running and upkeep of the sanctuary –mishkan. If we counted people, we might be mistaken and think that the ' whole is the sum of the parts.' Knesset Yisrael ' – Israel as a unified group are so much more than the sum of all the individual Israelites. Individuals now share the destiny of the group and benefit both the blessings and power of prayer of the group.

By being part of the group or community individual choice is limited, but  choice per se is not,  as the community has the ability to get people to cooperate and work together to provide for people and solve problems collaboratively.  The author and speaker Jonathan Haidt who studies Moral Psychology says HERE  in his Ted Talks that when people become loyal contributing members of a group they feel uplifted and elevated and experience a sense of spirituality. They ' transcend themselves ' and attach themselves to the group and its values. They lose themselves and give up their selfish and personal interests for the group. This is why it is so important in education to create schools that are cooperative communities of caring and responsible kids who love learning. Instead of rewards and punishments that focus on self-interest, kids in the community now ask themselves moral questions - how my behavior impacts on others, what type of person do I want to be, what type of school or community and their values I want my school and community to be and have.

After examining multi-disciplinary literature on morality, Jonathan Haidt came up with the 5 foundations of morality, the draft of the moral mind with which we are born.  Harm and care - caring, bonding, feeling compassion for people and strong feelings against those who cause harm to others. Fairness- reciprocity as expressed by the Golden Rule –' treat people as you would like them to treat you.'  In- group/loyalty – Being loyal to a group, contributing and cooperating. Authority/ respect – ideally based on voluntary deference and even at times, love. Purity/Sanctity  - not  a hedonistic  life , but controlling what you do with your bodies and what you put into your bodies – the political right moralizes more  about sex and  the political left is doing a lot of that with food. Conservatives generally have more of a five-foundation  morality. Liberals have a kind of  two-foundation  morality – care/harm and fairness/reciprocity. They have problems with in-groups, authority and purity as these can become the foundations of xenophobia, authoritarianism and Puritanism preferring to celebrate diversity, questioning authority and saying 'keep your laws off my body'. These foundations can be repressive and restrictive to those at the bottom, women or those who do not fit in. On the other hand we need some ideology that tells people to suppress their carnality, to pursue higher and nobler ends rather than individuals focusing on their own individual pleasures and self-interest which ultimately will reveal the truth of social entropy. Moral arguments within cultures are especially about issues of in-group, authority and purity.

One of the most important principles of morality is that morality binds and blinds. It binds us into teams that circle around sacred values and thereby makes us go blind to objective reality and the truth. Because when people all share values and morals , they become  a team and once you engage the psychology of teams , it causes polarization, shuts down open-minded thinking and paralyses any chance of society dealing with the major issues facing that society.

Jonathan Haidt shares 4 asteroids that are on their way and will  cause disaster and destruction – Global warming, wealth and income inequality, family values- risingnumbers of  single mothers, and national debt. Each group has their own agenda. The left – global warming and poverty. The conservatives deny the problem of global warming, it does not exist and the solution for poverty is with the individual – no raising of taxes.  A rising National debt is not an issue or problem for the left and the kind of family is a choice. Wealth and income inequality divides and separates people. Some people are sitting safe and sound in gigantic yachts while others are clinging to a piece of driftwood. When we are not all in the same boat that means nobody is willing to sacrifice for the common good.

That reminds me of the public discussion and debate within the Orthodox Jewish world between those who champion keeping most men in full-time learning as long as possible to deal with the challenges of the open society and those who say - not only is this unsustainable but people have to contribute to society by serving in the army and support the economy by working. Because each value is the agenda of the other group, it becomes a non-issue for the opposing group. The challenges of the open society for those in the army, working or studying in universities with regards to modesty, keeping mitzvoth  and dedication to learning etc. is not an issue for the  group that is very involved with the world, while  dealing with poverty in a way that individuals make a contribution – is not an issue for the more insular  group.  So society is polarized and issues are not addressed.

The answer is in Parashat Bamidbar - the census according to the tribes and encampment around the Sanctuary – mishkan and the lesson of Matan- giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. The counting of the people according to tribes could lead to tribalism and factionalism, but after the building of the Sanctuary-mishkan, the tribes now all shared the same values and formed a circle around the sanctuary. The separateness of each tribe was only there to support them in their service of the nation as a whole and support national unity.  ויחן שם ישראל נגד ההר'' (שמות יט, ב). ופרש''י (שם) עפ"י המדרש: "ויחן שם ישראל – כאיש אחד בלב אחד". At Mount Sinai, at the giving of the Torah there was an incredible unity - the nation was like one man and one heart  - a precondition of being able receive the Torah and strive for the truth.

 Unity, feeling we are in the same boat, is a prerequisite for seeing the objective reality and truth. Jonathan Haidt quotes the Zen Master Seng-ts'an ' if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between for and against is the mind's worst disease'.

Society can face the asteroids and deal with problems only by feeling we are all in the same boat, objectively looking at problems ,collaborating and addressing the concerns of all and being guided by the values of the Holy Torah.

Defying their rabbis, more and more Haredim go online

Haaretz  It was just a few years ago that the rabbis fought the Internet with all their power and the few Haredim who dared to use it did so in secret. The rabbis still look askance at online activity, but gradually the Web has come close to winning legitimacy. Today, more and more websites are being set up and the number of users has skyrocketed. Even the big advertisers like Bezeq are rushing into the Haredi digital market. 

The phenomenon has many social and cultural implications for the integration of the ultra-Orthodox into Israeli society and the workplace, not to mention many new business opportunities. Google has jumped on the bandwagon and organized the first conference of its kind for Haredi advertisers last week called “A Friday night of cholent and digital.” 

Held in cooperation with the Haredi advertising agency Max Digital, Google presented ad tools for the Haredi community.[...]

“There is still no official approval to use the Internet. But we have also seen in the last two years that there is a lot more usage via cellular, and the applications being built for it testify to that,” she says. “ But we must note that the language in ads still remains Haredi – and there is no breaking down of the limits there.” 

In fact, some advertisers have no choice but to use digital advertising because the Haredi newspapers censor or outright ban certain ads, such as those for higher education. It is not just that the Internet allows advertisers to reach their target audience – sometimes it is the only way to reach them, especially the young people, she says.

Protecting ourselves from the apparent confluence of Modern and Open Orthodoxy

Rabbi Topolosky of Hebrew Academy

Guest post by Joe Orlow

I often get asked what can be done to protect ourselves from the apparent confluence of Modern Orthodoxy and Open Orthodoxy.

My answer is "Hava Nis'chakma", we must be proactive. We cannot wait till the next divisive divorce leads to hordes of ORA protestors arriving to harass a husband.

About two years ago there was an ORA protest in Washington DC. A local Orthodox day school gave some of the older students an opportunity to join the protest. I approached some of the students. This dismayed a top administrator who chaperoned the students. But I think he didn't do much to actually stop me because of a concern that his actions to muzzle me would have been perceived by the students to be hypocritical. "This school which teaches us to taste knowledge from many areas of study and trusts us to evaluate this knowledge now tells us not to listen to Joe Orlow?" Furthermore, making me forbidden fruit could possibly make my "illicit" teachings all the more attractive.

In truth, my appetite was whetted. These students asked me tough questions and paid close attention when I filled them in on the circumstances leading up to the wife demanding a Get. I realized that reaching out to students is the way to take the wind out of Open Orthodoxy's sails.

In the next phase, I would like to reach out to my friends gathered under the Daas Torah tent. Help me put together a campaign against Open Orthodoxy. Here is my idea. I seek and value your feedback.

1. I will contact the BDA explaining that the BDA's recent behavior of issuing a summons to a non-existent husband raises serious and substantial questions about the Halachic status of the BDA. Furthermore, the apparent failure of the BDA to publicly admit the BDA's wrongdoing, and the failure to explain how the BDA is going to ensure this doesn't happen again, should lead all thinking people to distance themselves from the BDA.

2. I will contact the administrators and teachers at the local Orthodox day school and tell them I will be reaching out to their students to warn their students not to use the BDA. In particular, boys and girls will be warned not to specify the BDA as their Bais Din if and when they sign any pre-nuptials.

3. I will contact students directly, teaching them the Halachic dangers inherent in the BDA pre-nuptials. I will teach them about the Halachos of when and how a Get may be forced, and when it may not be forced. I will include much of the information about the Halachos of Gittin which I've learned on this blog, and from taking Rabbi Dovid Eidensohn's ongoing telephone classes.

So, you've heard from me. I await your comments. Moe? Kishkeyum? Now is not the time for kid gloves. You've given it to me straight before; I expect nothing less here. I may only get one real chance to reach out to the young people in my town. I may not be the right one to be doing this, but at least I want to give it my best shot.

Joe Orlow

Defense lawyer Nat Lewin explains how FBI got seruv for non-existent husband from ORA and Beis Din of America

Jewish Press     [...] There was also substantial evidence from FBI agents about the “sting” that was hatched by the FBI in March 2012. A female “certified undercover agent” who had been trained at a specialized school in Quantico, Virginia, was assigned to act as “a wife who was trying to obtain a get or a divorce from her husband.” Another undercover agent was assigned to act as her brother, and the FBI created a fictitious husband who was living in Argentina and had refused to give his wife a get.

The purpose of an FBI sting is to lure individuals who might commit a crime to do so in a manner that can easily be proved in court. Meetings with possible perpetrators are orally and visually recorded for presentation at a criminal trial.

The FBI’s undercover agents went about their business by first contacting the Organization for the Resolution of Agunot (ORA) and asking for its assistance on behalf of the make-believe agunah. She sent an e-mail to ORA and followed up with several telephone calls. Believing her story, an ORA representative sent her to the Beth Din of America. The undercover agents then skillfully enacted the plight of a victimized agunah to responsible personnel at the Beth Din of America which, at their request, sent three summonses (hazmanas) to the fictitious husband at a fictitious address in Florida. (The agent testified that it was really a “post office mailbox.”) When the husband failed to reply (because, as the agent acknowledged on the witness stand, he “did not exist”), the agents persuaded the Beth Din of America to issue a seruv, signed by its chief rabbinical authority.

In order to accomplish this objective and persuade the Beth Din of America to issue the seruv, the agents fabricated a fictitious e-mail from the nonexistent husband to the purported brother acknowledging receipt of the hazmanas. Copies of the Beth Din of America’s warning and the seruv signed by the rabbinical authority were introduced in evidence. (Would the FBI treat so cavalierly and mislead an equivalent Christian or Muslim religious authority in order to advance a sting?)

With the seruv in hand and with very effective dramatic portrayals of a weeping desperate agunah, the FBI undercover agents contacted the rabbis whom they lured into commission of what the Department of Justice viewed as criminal conduct – i.e., an attempt to commit kidnappings of the kind that had been committed against recalcitrant husbands in 2009, 2010, and 2011.

The sting succeeded famously. On the night of October 9, 2013, eight Orthodox men were arrested at a warehouse in Edison, New Jersey. The prosecutors alleged they had come there to violently force the non-existent Argentinian husband to give a get.[...]

I was in church 48 years ago today - where were you? Reflections of a giyores on Yom Yerushalayim

Guest Post by Miriam ​Shear

I remember it like it was yesterday although I was only ten years old at the time.

For several weeks there was a buzz in our neighborhood: I remember my mother standing with the neighbor ladies, coffee cups in hand, speaking in worried tones about "What's going to be with little Israel?" Nasser was belligerently telling the world that his army would drive the Jews into the sea. Little Israel was surrounded by blood thirsty enemies who despised not just her settling of the land but her very existence. After all, Hitler had not finished the job. The Arabs were determined to clean up this unfinished business.

I would spend weekends in my Grandmother's little grocery store. More than the candy, I loved being with my Grandmother and observing all the customers who came into her store and spent time talking with my Grandma about anything and everything. Each one had a story. But now, everyone was talking about only one thing: "What's going to be with little Israel?"

My grandmother had a tzedeka can on her counter and asked everyone to donate to "Israel's War Effort". People gave generously.

Most people dropped their coins and bills into the can with a heavy sigh and ominous comments like, "This is probably a waste because there is no chance Israel can win" or "G-d should help them because I don't think all the money in the world is going to help the Jews this time".

My Grandmother, a staunch Catholic who never missed Sunday mass, would chastise them: "Do not underestimate the Jews", she would say. "They have the best General on their side" as she pointed to the sky. "I do not believe G-d brought them back to their land only to lose it again. You watch. These Israelis may just end up driving the Egyptians into the sea."

Some would say, "You're right, Stella" and nod their heads and walk away, the looks on their faces betraying their worry that she was wrong. Others would say, "Now we have to pray harder than ever for Israel. Those who curse them will be cursed and those who bless them will be blessed. It's G-d's promise to the world."

When two nuns came in to collect the charity box for Israel, my Grandmother had me count out the collection and hand the money to the nuns with larger bills, my Grandmother throwing in her own generous donation which she kept hidden in her bra ("so if we get robbed they don't get everything"). The nuns left behind a little Israeli flag to tape to our can and a few cards with pictures of saints and some prayers. My Grandmother asked for more of those charity tin cans to give to other businesses in the area. I would man the store for a few minutes while she ran out and put the cans in other stores.

When I returned to my parents' home, we drove past our church. There was a long line to get in. What happened?

Word was coming in that the war had now started. Israel was under attack fighting for its life. The church doors were flung open 24 hours per day every day of the week so people could come in at any time to pray for Israel. An Israeli flag was hoisted next to the American flag in the sanctuary. The collection basket was passed and overflowed with people's donations to help Israel's war machine.

I remember my mother ironing my father's white shirts (no permanent press in those days) while intensely watching TV to pick up the latest news on the developments. Walter Cronkite in his usual somber tones only added to the dreary mood. My mother kept telling us kids to "pray harder and be nicer" so that G-d will help Israel.

There was one thing that the priest said that I'll never forget. As the collection basket was being passed he said: "Everyone should have in mind that the money you are donating is holy money for a holy people in a holy land. With G-d's help, this money will be used to build and strengthen Israel to fulfill the prophet's words that Jerusalem will be rebuilt and that the Jews will once again return to her land from the four corners of the world."

At the time, I remember thinking to myself: "How I wish I could some day live in the holy land."

Little did I know that one day I would live in the very land that Israel conquered in those 6 days. Not only me but my children too. I had no inkling that one day I would sit in Kraft Stadium and watch the words of the prophet coming to life as my son plays football for the Jerusalem Team and the National Team: "And you shall hear the laughter of children in the streets of Jerusalem".

Even farther removed from any thought whatsoever was that I would have a daughter who would be an IDF combat soldier guarding the very land that Israel was to acquire in this Six Day War. As I write these words here today she stands doing shmira in Jericho, was doing shmira in the Gush 2 months ago and before that the border with Gaza - the very holy land that Israel regained while I was a little 10 year old child praying in church for Israel's victory.

Today I live here, breathe the air "that makes one wise" (Kiddushin), walk in the steps of the Avot, pray at the Kotel, work, learn, and bring others.

And yes, I also run to bomb shelters when the missiles are flying, call my kids at midnight to warn them to be alert at bus and train stops against terrorists ramming their cars into pedestrians, reprimand Jewish kids to give up their seats for the elderly on buses, occasionally remind a few Chareidim that women do NOT have to sit in the back of the bus, hand a near naked secular woman my scarf to cover up because she forgot to look in the mirror before she walked out of her house that morning, and argue with taxi drivers who think my American accent makes me a prime target to be ripped off.

No, life is not perfect here by any means. But it's OURS. Every aggravation, every worry is one more building block in building and securing our beloved Eretz Yisrael. It's my personal contribution, my own "half shekel" donation to eventually bring the geula, the redemption, the coming of Moshiach and the building of our Holy Temple.

From Church to the Kotel . . . . .in only 41 years. And so I praise G-d with all my heart and soul, with every fabric of my being, that He has blessed my children and I to live here in Eretz Yisrael.

Miriam

Mendel Epstein Torture for Get trial: Details on Chaimowitz beating including apparent involvement of Rabbis Ralbag, Stern, Kalish, and Lebowitz.

   Details on Chaimowitz Beating 

Barry Freundel Sentenced to Nearly 6 1/2 Years in Voyeurism Case

NBC  A once-prominent Orthodox rabbi who admitted to secretly videotaping scores of women in a changing room at a Jewish ritual bath was sentenced to nearly six and a half years in prison Friday.

Rabbi Bernard "Barry" Freundel was sentenced in Washington, D.C., court after 16 of his victims -- some in tears -- spoke against him, sharing their pain and suffering during the three-hour sentencing. [...]

Freundel was sentenced to 45 days on each of 52 counts of voyeurism to be served consecutively, which comes to 2,340 days in prison, or just less than six and a half years.[...]

"I can't imagine ever giving into this impulse again," he said.

But Judge Geoffrey Alprin said there was no excuse.

"The defendant repeatedly and seriously violated the trust and abused his power," Alprin said. "The conduct is despicable. There is no justification. The defendant lured victims to the mikvah and secretly recorded them undressed without their knowledge or permission."

World Jewish Congress VP Adamovsky guilty of £22m fraud

Jewish Chronicle    A court has found that Andrey Adamovsky, vice president of the World Jewish Congress, defrauded former business partners to the tune of $34.7 million (£22.3m).

A civil court judge handed down the verdict last October, but Mr Adamovsky, who was found to have illicitly deprived two co-owners of his Oledo Petroleum company of their 45 per cent share of its sale, has not yet paid them back. [...]

Mr Kenney, a Canadian lawyer who specialises in prosecuting large-scale fraudsters, said it was “unconscionable” that a proven thief could still represent the WJC. 

He said: “It’s shocking to me that a reputable organisation like the WJC would make such an appointment.”

A WJC representative said: "Mr. Adamovsky is a member of the WJC Executive by virtue of having been being elected co-chairman of the Vaad of Ukraine, which under the WJC Constitution automatically makes him an ex-officio member of the WJC Executive Committee. Mr Adamovsky’s civil litigation over a commercial dispute is totally unrelated to the World Jewish Congress or the Jewish community of Ukraine. It began and ended well before he became a member of the WJC Executive Committee in March 2015.[...]

Jerusalem School bus assistant confesses to sexual abuse

YNET

חשד: מלווה הסעות ביצע מעשים מגונים בילדים

נהג אוטובוס בירושלים הבחין בחשוד מבצע מעשה מגונה בילד והזעיק משטרה. בחקירתו הודה בעשרות מקרים נוספים בהם ביצע את המעשים בילדים בני 6-4. משפחתו טוענת שאינו כשיר לעמוד לדין. מעצרו הוארך
 

משטרת ירושלים עצרה אתמול (רביעי) צעיר יהודי שעובד כמלווה בהסעות ילדים, החשוד בביצוע עשרות מעשים מגונים בילדים בני 4-6. החשוד, אברהם נתן ברנט (35) נעצר אתמול לאחר שנהג אוטובוס הבחין בו מבצע מעשה מגונה בילד בן 4, בזמן שהיו ברכב הסעות. הנהג עצר את האוטובוס באופן מיידי והזעיק את המשטרה.

בחקירתו הודה ברנט במעשה והתברר כי לא מדובר במקרה אחד.

Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Telephone Conference Shiur #7 - Negating a Marriage without a GET Shiur on Wednesday night 9:30 May 13

Shiur on Wednesday night 9:30 May 13 – Call 605-562-3130 then enter code 411161#

1. HaGaon Reb Moshe Feinstein in EH IV:52 writes that if a woman marries and finds out that the husband has a great defect, that the marriage can be negated without a GET. Cases are that the husband cannot have BIAH, or the husband is a Shoteh.

2. In EH IV:113 Reb Moshe permits the wife to remarry if her husband is discovered to be strongly involved in homosexuality. But this only applies if the wife, immediately upon learning about her husband’s problem left him and did not return.

3. However, “If it is impossible to get a GET from him we permit her to remarry, but if it is possible to get a GET from him we must do everything possible to get the GET.”

4. But why is there such a need to get a GET that everything possible, such as paying large sums of money, must be invoked? And the answer is, that it is extremely rare to find a Rov who permits a married woman to remarry without a GET, and even Reb Moshe commands us to get a GET at any cost, if possible

5. Also, Reb Moshe in EH I:79:1 brings from the Beis HaLevi Simon 3 and the Kovneh Rov, AIN YITSCHOK 24:6 and BIARE YITSCHOK 4:3, Gedolei hador in the time of the Chofetz Chaim who were are not sure that the marriage is negated by a great Mum or blemish.

6. The Kovneh Rov brings in AYIN YITSCHOK I:EH 24:7:44 that some authorities feel that there is a doubt whether if there is a great defect the marriage is negated: Chavass Yoir, the Besomim Rosh, Rashbatz and Shevuse Yaacov did not want to permit remarriage without a GET. If so many great authorities were not sure of the halacha with a great blemish and refuse to permit the wife to remarry, Reb Moshe took upon himself to permit this. But this does not mean that we do this as we see that the majority of the great authorities from previous generations did not consider the woman free to remarry.

7. Reb Yosef ben Leib, considered by some the rebbe of Rebbe Yosef Karo, writes in volume two IV:19:3, Regarding a woman remarrying when she may be forbidden to do this, we are stringent and forbid this, even if most authorities permit it.” What if most or all other authorities forbid it? That is the situation with Reb Moshe’s opinion about permitting a woman to remarry when nobody agrees with him. But there is another problem with this heter.

8. Reb Moshe himself says that the person who wants to cancel the marriage can only do so when the great blemish is discovered and immediately, without delay, the person leaves the house and has nothing to do with the blemished person. This is found in Chelkas Mechokake EH 39:9.

9. My question is: Let us assume that a blemish does permit a woman to be free of the marriage. But who knows that the wife immediately fled from the husband? Of course, now, hours or days or weeks later, she may have decided to leave. But if she delayed even by a small span of time, she is not free. And is it not likely that the woman was in a great state of shock and struggled to think things over. Leave? Maybe yes, maybe not. Perhaps being alone is worse. What would people say? Who will support me? What will the children say? How will the children ever marry if people know that their father was an active homosexual? What if the wife wants to straighten out her bank account that has large sums that if she has a few days can be in her favor, but if she just runs away, she may lose everything? What is the halacha about that? Who takes the responsibility to say it is not a problem?

10. Another problem is one I learned the hard way. I once needed a GET from somebody who would not allow a rabbi into his office. Reb Moshe had a teshuva permitting making the GET. A rabbi agreed to do the GET on the condition that he personally not give a document that the woman was properly divorced. Rather, he would write that according to Reb Moshe the GET was kosher. At that, I called Reb Moshe’s gabei and was told, “Just because it says that in the Teshuva sefer, does that mean that we do it?” I was stunned and just hung up. I called up Reb Aivigder Miller zt”l who told me, “Reb Moshe became stricter later in life and regretted some decisions he had made in earlier times. When the world was a complete disaster Reb Moshe felt he had to be very lenient. But as the word got frumer Reb Moshe pulled back.

11. If so, who says that anyone should do what Reb Moshe permits in this case when all rabbonim disagree with him?

12. I heard from the assistant to Rav Henkin, Rabbi Margolin, a similar thing. We used to doven in the same shull and we would talk. He told me that he constantly asked Rav Henkin to put out his teshuvose, because he was the posek hador in America before Reb Moshe, and he had a huge amount of teshuvose. But Rav Henkin refused. He felt that his teshuvose were for a lost generation, and he hoped that better times would come when his teshuvose were not appropriate.

13. If so, when we find an incredible chidush from Reb Moshe, who says something that nobody else in the world accepts, and what the greatest authorities discuss in depth and reject Reb Moshe’s leniency, who can go release a woman from a marriage and have her remarry and have children after that? Probably, there is a serious doubt if Reb Moshe himself would continue to hold this opinion. And even if he does maintain his leniency, how can we permit a woman to remarry when all of the great rabbis who discussed this refused to permit her to remarry? And how do we know that she really left immediately when finding out the problem with the husband?

14. Another problem. A marriage made with the understanding that it will only be viable if such and such are done. Or a marriage that is only viable if a person does not have a certain problem. If the condition is not fulfilled do we cancel the marriage? If the marriage was made with ERUSIN alone, only giving a ring, for instance, and the condition is not fulfilled, the marriage is off. But if the couple had CHUPAH or intimacy, the condition may be cancelled. See Shulchan Aruch EH 38:35.

15. “One who makes ERUSIN with a condition [that cancels the marriage if the condition is not fulfilled], but has relations with his wife without mentioning the condition, [and the condition is not fulfilled seemingly canceling the marriage] she needs a GET [meaning she is married despite the condition that cancelled the marriage] even though the condition was not fulfilled. We suspect that he negated the condition when he had relations with her or brought her into his home. Ramo – And if somebody else marries her she needs a GET from both of them.” We see from this that even when somebody says he will marry only if a certain condition is fulfilled, and the condition is not fulfilled, if he has relations or CHUPAH with his wife, we fear that he negated his conditions. This could be because “nobody wants to have marital relations that are zenuse.” See also EH 38:36 at the end that she is married after the intimacy and he must give her a KESUBO even if the condition for the marriage is not fulfilled.

16. Thus although if somebody makes a condition to marry and the condition is not fulfilled the marriage is off, that only applies to ERUSIN, without CHUPAH or BIAH. But if somebody makes a condition that only with this condition is there a marriage and then there is CHUPAH or intimacy, there is a serious question if the condition is negated by the CHUPAH or intimacy. Because once a person has CHUPAH or intimacy and still presses the condition, the marriage is off. And the CHUPAH and intimacy were outside of a marriage, or Zenuse. Therefore, it is quite possible that any condition made for ERUSIN is negated upon CHUPAH or intimacy. But a woman married with CHUPAH or intimacy, even if we would normally assume that no man or woman would accept such a blemish in marriage, this is only prior to CHUPAH. But once there is CHUPAH conditions are negated so that the intimacy is not Zenuse. If so, in all cases where the marriage is negated because of a MUM or serious problem, once there was CHUPAH it is possible that the marriage is still viable to prevent BIAS ZENUSE.

17. See Yevomose 107 “Nobody makes his intimacy Zenuse” and “a marriage made with certain conditions, those conditions are negated when the couple is together” means basically that the marriage with CHUPAH survives the requirement of conditions. This is a complicated topic but surely it is not a simple thing to free a woman who is married to somebody who has a great blemish MUM, especially as other than Reb Moshe nobody permits it, and everyone forbids it. And, as I mentioned earlier, Reb Moshe’s teshuvose often contain material that he personally refused to permit in later years. Perhaps this is one of them.