How Do You Motivate Kids To Stop Skipping School?

NPR

It seems like a no-brainer: Offer kids a reward for showing up at school, and their attendance will shoot up. But a recent study of third-graders in a slum in India suggests that incentive schemes can do more harm than good.

The study, a working paper released by the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, looked at 799 boys and girls. The kids, mostly age 9, were students in several dozen single-classroom schools run by the nonprofit Gyan Shala in some of the poorest neighborhoods in the city of Ahmedabad.

Gyan Shala's program is free and has a reputation for offering decent quality instruction in language, math and science. Still, attendance rates are no better than the average for the region. On any given day, about a quarter of students are absent. Gyan Shala's administrators believe many opt to stay home and play if, say, it's a festival day or a sibling who attends a different school is off or simply because they're not in the mood for class.

So the researchers challenged kids in about half of the classes: Over a designated 38-day period, show up for at least 32 days — that's 85 percent of the time — and get a special gift: two pencils and an eraser.[...]

So far it all seemed logical, says Visaria. As an economist, she would expect a reward program to be most effective with students who don't already have some existing, intrinsic motivation for going to school — like finding class fun.

After the 38 days, rewards were handed out to those who qualified in a special ceremony in front of the rest of the class. The researchers checked back on the kids two more times. And that's when things got surprising.

The researchers looked at three different categories:

• Kids whose attendance rate was highest in the class before the reward program. They reverted to their baseline level.

• Kids whose attendance rate was lowest but managed to up their attendance enough to win the prize. After the program was over, these kids also reverted to their lower baseline level.

• Kids whose attendance rate was lowest to start off with and who did not improve enough to qualify for the reward. In other words, they failed the challenge. More than 60 percent of the lowest attenders fell into this category. For them, the aftermath was grim. They were now only about one-fourth as likely to show up for class as they had been before the reward scheme was introduced. [..]

Rav Dovid Eidensohn Telephone Conference Shiur #9 – What Beth Din is Empowered to Coerce a GET? May 27 Wednesday 9:30 PM

Shiur #9 – What Beth Din is Empowered to Coerce a GET?

Telephone Conference Shiur #9 May 27 Wednesday 9:30 PM call 605-562-3130 enter code 411161#

1. We have previously discussed when a Beth Din may coerce a GET. Now we want to go into the power of any Beth Din, how they are authorized by the Torah to make a coerced GET.

2. Gemora Gittin 88b: “Abayeh found Rav Yosef sitting and coercing husbands to divorce their wives with a GET. He said to him, ‘But we are plain people [meaning the rabbis in Babylonia did not get the ancient Semicha and therefore are not MUMCHIM.] Rashi explains that in those days rabbis in Israel did receive the ancient Semicha that began with Moshe Rabbeinu and were therefore authorized by the Torah to fulfill all judicial functions necessary such as coercing a GET when appropriate. But Rav Yosef was in Babylonia, and the rabbis there did not receive this Semicha. So by whose authority did Rav Yosef coerce a GET?

3. Rav Yosef replied, “We are messengers of the rabbis who got Semicha.”

4. Tosfose there D”H bimilso dishechicha explains, “We do the work assigned to us by the earlier generations [who had Semicha] in Israel.”

5. We see from this that the entire capacity to coerce a GET and fulfill other functions of a dayan today is because we received permission to do this from earlier generations in Israel who had semicha.

6. Furthermore, the gemora says that we are not authorized by the early generations of Semuchim to fulfill the functions of a Torah Dayan in all things, only in those things that are common. But why is this? Why did the earlier generations grant permission for us to fulfill the will of the Torah with Semicha only with what is common to us?

7. Perhaps this itself that the permission is not total reminds us that our status is not that of real Semuchim. We may only function according to the command of the earlier Semuchim. The earlier generations of Semuchim were the greatest of their time. And they passed on this Semicha to Babylonia and other countries who had no Semicha only if the rabbis there were very prominent scholars, the cream of the rabbinate. This means that today coercing a husband is a right only of the greatest rabbis. Not long ago a letter from the major Gedolim in Israel said the same thing. But their letter was a response to coerced Gittin from people who are not true scholars or who differ with the Shulchan Aruch. But besides these considerations, we may also assume that the permission given by earlier Musmochim applied only to great rabbis. If so, those who are not great and coerce a GET have made an invalid GET.

8. In fact, see the Tosfose HaRid on the gemora above Gittin 88. He deduces from Bovo Basro that coercing to divorce a wife is only effective because “it is a mitzvah to obey the sages.” Obviously, the power of coercion is only given to such rabbis who are considered by everyone, even one who has to be beaten to fulfill the Torah, as authorities. The Beth Din not universally recognized as great sages, may produce invalid Gittin. Did the earlier semuchim, the greatest rabbis, give permission for plain rabbis to fulfill the roll previously given only to the greatest rabbis? Probably not.

9. Chasam Sofer in his teshuvose on Even Hoezer in two places 28 and 116 says that if the husband knows that two authorities differ whether or not the husband should be beaten, and then the husband is beaten and says, “I want the GET” because of that beating, the GET the husband gives is invalid by the Torah. This is because the husband only gives a proper GET under a beating when he accepts the rabbis as the true authorities to speak for the Torah. But if he knows there are those who disagree with the Beth Din that orders coercion, he does not accept them or their coercion and the GET is invalid, and the children born from it are mamzerim. [...]

Nativ - an Israel army program - provides an easier road to conversion

Times of Israel    Nativ [Jewish Identity Education]   is the army’s gateway to conversion. It’s Judaism and Zionism 101, taught by civilian and army instructors on a grassy campus, providing participants with reasonable food in a coed setting on the army’s dime. The seven-week course, even if one does not continue toward the conversion seminars that follow, counts toward time served. In short, most soldiers know that if they are entitled to the course, they might as well go.

It is – housed under the roof of the IDF, an organization that is by definition kosher and Sabbath observant – the only path in Israeli society that manages to skirt most of the minefields surrounding the question of who is a Jew. [...]

Nativ was founded in 2001, the brainchild of reserves general Elazar Stern, who, as chief education officer and head of IDF manpower, from 1999 to 2008, left an indelible mark on the military – pioneering the army’s organized trips to the Nazi death camps, introducing a blood marrow donor station at the IDF’s induction center, and, among many other initiatives, launching a rewrite of the army’s code of ethics. [...]

The process is not perfect. From the ultra-Orthodox perspective it is far too lenient. It does not even span an entire calendar year – in fact it could be completed in the period between the end of the Sukkot and the start of Passover – and the devotion of each and every convert to full compliance with the commandments has been questioned.

Secular Israelis have been outraged as well. In 2014, Noam Cohen, a newly discharged soldier, told Channel 10 that she was disqualified from the conversion track in the army because she lives on a kibbutz. It did not matter that her hometown of Kibbutz Yifat has a synagogue, or that there is a religious family living on the kibbutz, or that her father was a veteran of Sayeret Matkal, or that there is a plaque drilled into the synagogue wall with the names of 22 fallen Israeli soldiers from the kibbutz: the fact of her living on a secular kibbutz was grounds for disqualification, she said.[...]

Roughly 3,000 soldiers opt to start the Nativ courses every year. The first seven weeks are a bit like college. The classes are taught by religious, secular, Reform and Conservative teachers. The dorms and classrooms are sprinkled with students from all over the world – participants referred to it as “the Mondial” or World Cup of soccer – but the clear majority are from Russian-speaking homes. In a history class I sat in on, addressing the Roman rule over Judea, there were 20 students from former Soviet Union states and two from the US, both of whom were Jewish but eligible for the course as new immigrants. One, a college graduate from New Rochelle, New York, was the most active participant in class. The other doodled impressively. The army allowed access to three of the Russian-speaking students.[....]

Todrus Gyrnhaus: Why did the community turn to a psychologist instead of the police?

 update - added official view of Gateshead Rav which disagree with the original guest post






just received this letter and explanation:

Hello. your guest post about the Gateshead Rav is a complete misunderstanding of his position. i was debating a long time about whether to send you this one-page summary of a Shiur he has given on the topic of reporting molesters, but now it seems that it would be a good idea, This summary has already been circulated and has the Haskama of the GR.
כללי הלכה נעביד רודפי ילדים

א. מסירה - הנה מסירה הוא ערן חמור מאוד ואין לו חלק לעוה"ב - אמנם זה כשעושה כן באיסור אבל לפעמים הוא מותר ולפעמים הוא חיוב למסור - רע' בחו"מ ס' שפ"ח ובספרי התשובות עליו - ובאופנים המותרים הוא מיציר לרבים - הצלת נרדף - לאפרושי מאיסורא - טסקא דמלכא ועוד - וע"כ צריכים לדון כל עניך ע"פ ההלכה אחר לימוד בעיון ובעמל ובשימוש חכמים - ולא לדון מתוך רגש או שמועה ששמע בילדותו או ע"י לימוד שטחי

ב. רודף ילדים - יש בו הרבה אם לא כל הטעמים הנ"ל - רע' בירחון ישורון חלק ט"ו, וכ"ב וכן בנשמת אברהם ח"ד תשובות מגדולי הוראה של כל החוגים הן מא"י והן מחוץ לארץ שהסכימו לזה - ועל כולם הוא פסק של הגרי"ש אלישיב זי"ע שמלבד כל הטעמים הנ"ל מוסיף ומכין ועונשין שלא מן הדין באופן שהדור פרוץ בכך, ומחליט שזהו מציאות כהיום ר"ל

ג. עדות - הנה דברים האלו לעולם לא נעשים בפני עדים כשרים - ולעולם שומעים שמועות מפי נשים וקטנים - אמנם אין אנו ונין על הרודף לעונשו אלא ונין כאן אם יש חיוב של הצלת הנרדפים - ובוראי אם שומע מפי כמה באופן וניכר ואמת חייבים להציל נרדפים וכבר העיר לנו עיינין הגרי"ש אלישיב זי"ע רכל שבגדר שיש רגלים לדבר ]ולא דמיון[ מחויבים להציל אפילו ע"י מסירה למלכות

זאת ועוד מה שאשה פסולה לעדות היינו שאחר א"א לעשות ולענוש על פיה אבל בוראי היא בעצמה יודע המציאות מה נעשה לה - ואם היא שואלת לפי דבריה ויש רגלים לדבר שנכרים דברי אמת בוראי מותר לענות ולהורות לה לפי דבריה

וכ"ש בנדון ששמעו הודאת בעל דין - ואין לדון מדין אין אדם משים עצמו רשע כי אין אנו ונין אם כשר לעדות אלא אם מחויב להציל אחרים, ופשוט וצריכים לקבל דברי רוצח ורודף לעניך זה לדאוג לשמור על הנרצחים והנרדפים

ו. תשובה - האם צריכים לחשוש שעשה תשובה ובפרט כשהוא ת"ח שעבר עבירה בלילה, הנה זה לא נוגע כאן, ראשית כי אין ונין על האדם אלא אם חייבים לדאוג לנרדפים, שנית דמי שהכשיל אחרים בדאורייתא אין נאמן שעשה תשובה עד שיוחזק כמבואר ביו"ד סי· קי"ח, שלישית דמי שמושקע בהשחתות אלו הוא חולה במחלת נפש אשר קשה לרפאות אמנם הוא דבר שבגדר רפואה ואין עניך תשובה אלא לחטא ולא למחלות

ה. רחמנות - הנה בוראי מסימני זרע אברהם הוא רחמנות - אבל כמובן א"א לעשות על חשבון אחרים וכבר העידו חז"ל "כל המרחם על אכזרים לבסוף מתאכזר על רחמנים" - והנסיון כבר העיד שבעניך זה האכזריות על הרחמנים אינה לבסוף אלא הוא תיכף ומיד ובבת אחת ה· ישמרנו

ו . אפשר לחצילו כאחד מאבריו - בוראי גם מי שהוא רודף אין להוד גו אם ניתן להציל נרדפים באופן אחר וע"כ כשיש עצה בדוקה ובטוחה להציל נרדפים חייבים לעשותו אבל אין לסמוך בזה על עצות שאינם בטוחות לחלוטין כי אין אנו ושאין להפקיר נרדפים וילדים שאינם יכולין להגן על עצמן ע"י סברות ורצונות בדויות ) wishful thinking ( ומי שעושה כן הוא אינו בעל אחריות

ז. הראוי לחורות כזה - איתא בחז"ל רבים חללים הפילה הוא ת"ח שלא הגיע להוראה ומורה - והוא תלוי בכל הלכה ושאלה בפני עצמה - וע"כ אף מי שרגיל להורות בדיני איסור והיתר השכיחים או אפילו ת"ח מופלג שבקי בש"ס הוא לא הגיע להוראה בעניך זה ורק מי שעמל על דינים אלו ומתחיל מן הש"ס וראשונים ומסיים בלימוד חושן משפט ותשובות עליו כ אשר הנסיון מעיד לוקח לפחות מחודש עד חודשיים [ וגם לרבות ששימש ת"ח גאוני ההוראה בעני"ז רשאי להורות בזה ובלי זה הוי בגדר רבים חללים הפילה

נכתוב מתוך דברים ששמענו מהגאון אב"ד דק"ק גייטסהעד הרב ש .פ. זיממערמאן שליט"א

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


Guest Post:

Todros Grynhaus: The Gateshead Rav testifies against him in court"

What did the Gateshead Rav, Rabbi Zimmerman mean when he said,

"I realised it was beyond competence and let Dr Schauder handle it."?

Part of the tragedy of the 21st Century (a perspective which unfortunately has even damaged the Jewish world) is the belief that aveiros and middot can be "cured" by "therapy".

Rambam in Shmoneh Prakim and Hilchot Deot compares bad middot to illnesses, and doctors to Sages only as a MASHAL !! A mashal, or analogy, metaphor or model in English is only an illustration not a true description of the state of affairs.

Rambam definitely did not imply that, for example, a baal gaavah can be literally "cured" by medication! Nor do we take the metaphor 'choleh nefesh' literally and perform bikkur cholim for a baal taavas!

Now in modern times the mashal has come to be regarded as mamash concrete reality. Inappropriate behaviour is now regarded as "illness". Sure, perverse behaviour with children may be called "sick", but "sick behaviour" is, in the English idiom, a metaphor or figure of speech, as we've just said, a Mashal! We can also say that the economy of a country is "sick" or that a joke is a "sick joke". We can also say of drug abuse, or internet pornography "it is a cancer in our society".

The definition of "therapy" is treatment of a real illness, The behaviour in question is not a real illness at all (Was it diagnosed by a laboratory? Is there a pill for it?) and therefore any change in behaviour does not come under the definition of "therapy", whether attempted through talking, confining, drugs or electric shocks.

Behaviour is located in the domains of Hallachah, Musar, Derech Eretz, morality and ethics, politics and human conflict, and cannot be cured. Behaviour is not illness.

In this context we must point out that, Dr. Schauder, with all due respect to his academic credentials, and good intentions to do chesed, and mekarev, is not a real doctor treating a real illness, nor is he a baal musar guiding the teshuvah process, nor a kabbalist nor a rebbe, nor a posek! (This in a community with more qualified people in all these categories!).

A community with emunah shleimah in psychologists, only enables and extends the bad behaviour and further damages the victims, by failing to report it and naively waiting for it to be cured.

So, what, actually is this Game? After all, Dr. Schauder is an expert in Transactional Analysis, which is based on the priciple of 'Games People Play'?

Is the Gateshead Rav calling into question, Heaven forbid, the adequacy of 'Orchot Tzaddikim' and 'Mesillat Yesharim', recommending Pavlov's dog instead? Has the principle of S'char v'Ones been abolished? Is a graduate of Pretoria University a better baal musar than a Yeshiva graduate? Maybe we should appoint behaviourists as mashgichim ruchani in our Yeshivos?

One thing is clear, The Rav and community have now, given full recognition and endorsement to psychology and psychotherapy, something missing from Torah the last 3,500+ years, but what for?

When Rabbi Zimmerman said,

"I realised it was beyond competence and let Dr Schauder handle it." Did he mean, "Oh shame, the poor fellow can't help it, he's sick"? Or "Maybe a doctor's opinion will get us leniency in court"? or "We'll get him sentenced to hospital instead of being treated in prison"?

Shavuos: Points to ponder

Selections from my Daas Torah

Why were the Jews forced to accept the Torah

Shabbos (88a): And they stood under the mountain - Rav Avdimi said: This verse teaches that G d held the mountain over them like it was a barrel and told them: If you accept the Torah then it is well - but if not then this will be where you are buried. Rav Aha said: This coerced acceptance is a strong justification for not being obligated to keep the Torah. Rava said: Nevertheless they reaccepted the Torah willingly in the days of Achashverus [because of the hidden miracle of Purim and thus the Torah is fully binding on us]…

Tosfos (Shabbos 88a): And the mountain was held over them like a barrel to force them to accept the Torah. Even though they had already accepted the Torah by saying “We will do and then we will understand.” This forced acceptance was necessary because they might have retracted their acceptance when they saw the great fire at Sinai which caused their souls to depart their bodies… But why does the gemora say that the Torah was reaccepted during the days of Achashverus? In fact Nedarim (28a) states that Moshe established a covenant with them and they took an oath to keep it! Furthermore Sotah (37b) says that the Jews reaccepted the Torah at Mt. Grizim and Mt. Eivel [which was still during Moshe’s lifetime]? Rabbeinu Tam answered that these latter events were in response to G d’s commands and thus could be viewed as forced acceptances. However in the time of Achashverus they accepted the Torah because of the love engendered by the miracle of Purim. The other apparent exception is that Yehoshua made a covenant with them to serve G d? However that was only that they agreed not to worship idols [and was thus not a full acceptance of the Torah]…

Na'aseh v'nishma  - acceptance of Torah before understanding

Shabbos (88a): When the Jews readily accepted the Torah by saying na’aseh v’nishma (we will do whatever you want even before understanding why) , 600,000 angels came and tied two crowns on the head of each Jew - one for the na’aseh and one for the nishma….When the Jews said na’aseh v’nishma, a heavenly voice proclaimed, ‘Who revealed to my children this profound secret that is characteristic of angels?’

Tosefta (Bava Kama 7:3): We find that when the Jews were standing at Sinai they wanted to deceive G d. When they said regarding the acceptance of the Torah, na’aseh v’nishma (we will do whatever you want even before understanding why) they were being deceptive - as Moshe Rabbeinu noted, (Devarim 5:25–26) “25) And G d heard your words, when you spoke to me; and G d said to me, I have heard the words of this people, which they have spoken to you; what they have said they said well. 26) Oh that there were such a heart in them, that they would fear Me, and keep all My commandments always, that it might be well with them, and with their children forever!” But how could this be since everything is known to G d? It has been stated (Tehilim 78:36–37), “That they lied with what they said to G d and their hearts with not with Him and they were not faithful to their covenant - nevertheless G d is merciful and forgiving.”

Why the Jews received the Torah as a primitive people - not an educated nation?

Chasam Sofer (Derashos - BeShalach): G d took the Jews out of Egypt which was the lowest type of society that did all types of disgusting abominations which G d hated. The Jews at that point were a despised lowly people - not even a distinct nation. In Egypt, they were primitive slaves working with bricks and mortar and were without doubt devoid of even minimal knowledge of culture or science. They even lacked elementary knowledge of civilized conduct. Our sages (Yoma 75b) say that the Jews in Egypt were comparable to chickens pecking in a garbage dump until Moshe came and taught them the concept of meal times - breakfast and dinner. [Seforno - they were like animals]. We see that they were totally primitive like the slaves of the barbarians. So how could this debased people be immediately brought to Sinai where they were shown the most profound secrets of the universe and became prophets with unbounded understanding of spiritual issues? This question is reinforced by the fact that they remained primitive and uncultured people as we can see from their lowly behavior and outrageous complaints during this time? Wouldn’t it have been better to gradually educate them in civilized conduct to the level of the best of the nations of the world. They should have at least been raised to the level where they could be considered a nation. Once they were civilized, they should then have been refined level by level until they were prepared for receiving the Torah at Sinai? In truth, it is impossible to keep the Jews as a distinctive people unless they are completely separated from the other nations. That is accomplished by not learning knowledge which is common to other nations even Bible on the level of translation. The natural tendency to assimilation can only be prevented by going to the opposite extreme. If G d had first educated the Jews in worldly knowledge, they would never have acquired the truth of the Torah and faith. Before they would have reached, this final goal they would have already rejected them because these studies would have given them the universal identity common amongst all the nations. Moreover, even if the Jews had understood that the gods of the nations were worthless illusions and reject them, nevertheless they would also have completely rejected G d also.

Importance of the Redemption from Egypt and Revelation at Sinai

Kuzari (1:25): G d introduced His words to the entire Jewish people by saying that He was their G d Who took them out of Egypt. He didn’t say that He was the creator of the world and the creator of the Jews… Therefore that which obligates all Jews to keep the Torah is the experience of the redemption of Egypt and the revelation of Sinai which was they witnessed with their own eyes and afterwards transmitted through an unbroken chain of tradition through the generations - which is equivalent to actual seeing with one’s own eyes.

Rav S. R. Hirsch (Shemos 19:4): Faith - which is inherently vulnerable to being undermined by doubt - is not the basis of either your awareness of G d or your awareness of yourself. Both are in fact your direct knowledge of that which you have experienced directly through your physical senses. [This verse is describing the direct experience of the Exodus from Egypt]. The exact same idea is expressed later concerning the revelation of Torah - (Shemos 20:19), “You have seen that I have spoken to you from Heaven.” All of Judaism rests upon these two pillars of truth - the Exodus from Egypt and the Revelation of Torah at Sinai. These two pillars stand firmly on your own direct experience with your physical senses which excludes the possibility of deception. They were witnessed simultaneously by 600,000 people. These two pillars both have the highest degree of certainty and are excluded from the realm of mere conjecture or faith. They are in fact in the realm of direct knowledge and are therefore facts which are incontestable in the same way as the indisputable facts that we exist and the physical world exists are incontestable…

Rambam (Yesodei HaTorah 8:1): Moshe Rabbeinu was not believed by the Jews because of the miraculous signs that he did. That is because one who believes because of miraculous signs still has doubts in his heart that perhaps they were done by means of magic or trickery. In fact all the miraculous things that Moshe Rabbeinu did were because they were needed and were not meant to validate his prophecy…The entire basis for belief in Moshe Rabbeinu was the revelation at Sinai which we saw with our own eyes and heard with our own ears - and not those of strangers - the fire, the thunder and the lightning. We witnessed Moshe Rabbeinu entering into the enveloping darkness and heard the voice of G d speaking to him saying, ‘Moshe Moshe go tell them such and such’. Thus, the Torah (Devarim 5:4) says, ‘Face to face G d spoke with you’. Furthermore the Torah (Devarim 5:3) says, ‘G d didn’t make this covenant only with your fathers [but even with us who are all here alive today’]. How do we know that the revelation at Sinai was the necessary and sufficient proof that Moshe’s prophesy was entirely true? The Torah (Shemos 19:9) says, ‘Behold I come to you in a thick cloud in order that people will hear when I speak with you that they may believe in you forever.’ This implies that before they witnessed the revelation, the people had only an imperfect belief in Moshe Rabbeinu that contained doubts and second thoughts…

Rambam (Letter to Yemen): The preserving of the memory of the Revelation at Sinai is a Divine command. He told us not to forget the events at Sinai and He commanded us to raise our children with the awareness of its greatness as well as to teach them its greatness in their studies. This is explicitly stated in Devarim (4:9–10)… It is the correct thing, my brothers, to emphasize to your children this great Revelation at Sinai and to publicly tell them about its greatness and magnificence since the foundation of our faith rests on it and the awareness of it leads to truth. And its greatness is above all else since we see that G d Himself raised it up (Devarim 4:32). My brothers it is therefore critically important that you should know fully about the Covenant and the Revelation at Sinai. Equally important is to know that it has been validated by the most reliable testimony - the like of which never existed before and will not occur again. The entire nation heard the words of G d and they saw His glory directly with their eyes. G d made this happen in order to strengthen our faith to such a degree that it would never waver in times such as now, when there are terrors and pressure to convert, so that we would be able to overcome these horrible pressures…

Faith and not forgetting about the Revelation of Mt. Sinai

Ramban (Sefer HaMitzvos Forgotten Mitzvos Negative #2): And don’t misunderstand what it says in Kiddushin (30a) concerning the requirement of teaching Torah to your children and grandchildren that one should never forget any part of the Torah. Because in fact the learning of faith is learning Torah. Therefore, understand this and take the proof from their words that this requirement not to ever forget about Sinai - is a perpetual mitzva. It is necessary to talk about this in every generation in order for it not to be forgotten. It must be learned to the degree that everyone can see the events at Sinai and can hear them. This information must be carefully transmitted from generation to generation. This mitzva was stated in the Baal Halachos (170) but the Rambam forgot it.

Jewish are inherently skeptical and hard to influence

Rashba (4:234): We learned from our forefathers not to accept something which contains the slightest doubts or uncertainties until it has been thoroughly investigated and the truth is ascertained. This we see concerning the acceptance of Moshe as a true prophet. They were uncertain whether to believe him - even though he came to announce that they were to be rescued from the horrible servitude of Egypt. This is why Moshe said they won’t believe me. This is because it was known that they were inherently skeptical and did not believe anything except that which was unquestionably true. Therefore, even though G‑d did incredible miracles in Egypt until they were taken out with an outstretched arm and awesome events - it was not sufficient to remove the doubts about Moshe from their hearts. These doubts were caused by the fact that all that occurred in Egypt were possibly just coincidental or natural events or from magical powers. Because of these doubts, they did not have unconditional faith in Moshe until the Splitting of the Sea - as the verse says, “that they [now] believed in G‑d and Moshe His servant” (Shemos 14:31). The Targum (Shemos 14:31) says they now believed in the prophecy of Moshe that it was true and was not the result of natural events. This event removed the last vestige of doubt that the miraculous events in Egypt could have been the result of random natural events. It was obviously impossible that the sea could have been split at night and the next day return to its normal state. Therefore, the splitting of the sea removed the doubts from their hearts - for the time being. However soon after the Splitting of the Sea, the doubts returned. They thought perhaps Moshe, who was more knowledgeable than any other man had ever been, knew how to do this by natural means which they couldn’t ascertain. The only remaining option for clarifying the truth of Moshe’s prophecy was by their own prophecy and this is what in fact occurred at the Revelation of Sinai when they final established the truth.

Converts have greater love of Torah than Jews from birth

Rav Tzadok (Machshavos Charutz Chapter 19): R’ Akiva is the foundation of the Oral Law…He had to be a descendant of converts because love of Torah is most manifest in converts. We see that from the fact that despite G‑d’s redemption of the Jews from the slavery of Egypt and making them into a kingdom of priests, when He brought them to Mt. Sinai to get the Torah He had to force them to accept it (Shabbos 88a). Even when they eventually accepted it out of love in the time of Purim - it was because of the love of the miracle and salvation. In contrast, the convert leaves the tranquility of the world and the total freedom to fill his lusts as a non‑Jew. He willing comes to restrict himself and to attach himself to the Jewish people who are lowly and despised in this world. … It is only because of the convert’s love of Torah that he comes close and accepts the yoke of the Kingdom of Heaven… Furthermore, we see in Medrash Tanchuma (Noach 3) that the Jewish people had to be forced to accept the Oral Law since it requires so much effort. The only ones who learn it are those that have great love of G‑d with their entire heart and soul - and not someone who loves wealth and pleasure… We see then that G‑d had to force the Jewish people to accept the Oral Law even though in their inner soul they really wanted to accept the Oral Law…Nevertheless in the revealed aspect of this world which is the world of free will and effort - the love of Torah is more manifest amongst converts. Similar Pesachim (91b) states that converts are more careful in their performance of the mitzvos than Jews from birth…. Therefore, Rabbi Akiva who was descended from converts merited being the foundation of the Oral Law. In addition, we see that the description of the acceptance of the Torah was written in the section of Yisro - who was the head of all converts - and manifested great love of Torah. He left his high status and wealth to be in the Wilderness with the Jewish people…

Why was belief in Moshe necessary in addition to belief in Gd

R’ Elimelech of Lizensk (Letter): And they believed in G d and in Moshe His servant (Shemos 14:31). What is the relevance of the Jews believing in Moshe - even though G d promised that this would happen. Isn’t the main issue that the Jews should believe in G d? The fact is that the holy Torah is telling us a major idea that it was absolutely necessary that Moshe be believed. G d’s intent in saving the Jews from Egypt was so that they would accept the Torah. To that end they had to be purified by various trials… and Moshe sanctified himself, reached the highest level of prophecy, ascended Mt. Sinai and then brought the Torah down to the Jews. It is obvious that not all the Jews were on the spiritual level of Moshe to accept the Torah through prophecy. However because they believed in Moshe and attached themselves to him, he was able to able to influence them through ruach hakodesh and it was as if they were on the level of prophecy. Therefore, by means of this attachment and unity with Moshe they were all able to accept the Torah.

Importance of Emunas Chachomim

R’ Moshe Chagiz (Emunas Chachomim 506:61b): The phrase emunas chachomim has two different connotations. Firstly, it means the faith of the chachomim i.e., to have the same beliefs that the sages have. The second meaning is to believe what they say because we see in their actions that their words must be true. This latter view is the emuna of our forefathers as it is written in the Torah, “They believed in G d” [The first meaning] “and His servant Moshe” [which is the second meaning.]. Moreover, in preparation of the awesome assembly at Sinai, G d said to Moshe “Behold I am coming to you in a thick cloud in order that the people can hear My words with you and may also believe in you forever.” That means that they shall consequently believe not only in you, but the prophets that succeed you and the sages throughout the generations who will replace the prophets. Consequently, there is an unbroken chain of emuna.

Rashi (Devarim 11:22): Is it possible to say that a person should cling to G d when He is all consuming fire? Rather it means to cling to Torah students and sages and this is counted as if one is clinging to G d.

Eilu v'Eilu: How could conflicting views be given at Sinai

Ritva (Eruvin 13b): Eilu v’Eilu (both) are the words of the living G d. The Rabbis of France asked: How is it possible that the opposing sides of a dispute can both be the words of the living G d when one says the object is permitted and the other says it is prohibited? They answered that when Moshe received the Torah on Sinai he was shown 49 aspect of prohibition and 49 aspects of permission for each and every issue. G d explained to him that the final decision amongst these different alternatives was given to the sages of each generation. Thus, both permitting and prohibiting were both given on Sinai for each possible case and therefore both sides of the dispute are true. This explanation is correct according to the drash however according to kabbala there is a profound secret in this matter.

Piety and the power of visualization

Kuzari (3:5): The pious person makes his powers of visualization conjure up vivid images of holy things based on information in his memory. He should picture such things as the Revelation at Sinai, Avraham and Yitzchok at the Akeidah, the Tabernacle of Moshe, the service of the Temple and the glory of the Divine Presence in the Temple. He then commands his memory to store these images so that they are not forgotten…

A question for Shavuos

Guest Post

It is axiomatic that we are moser nefesh for our children. We spend exorbitant sums so that we can send our children to Jewish schools so that they may obtain a proper education. One of the main lessons that they are taught is: "Torah is #1, there is no #2." Everything must be seen within the eyes of a torah-dik hashkafah. Our children are regaled with stories of tzadikim who put their lives on the line so they could learn one more passouk, one more tosfos. 

Nonetheless, when it comes to Shavous, I feel torn. Shavous is the pinnacle of celebrating the Torah. We have a whole holiday dedicated to learning and rejoicing not in a singular event (ma'amad Har Sinai), rather in the daily event of reengaging in our commitment to the Torah. 

Our leaders who preach that Torah learning should be the primary endeavor of our lives close their schools the day before yom tov. Simply put, our educators are being disingenuous. Yes, I agree that all the morahs and rebbies need to prepare for yom tov. Yes, I agree that people may wish to go away for yom tov. But what message are we sending our children? People who work in the secular world don't take off before yom tov and are still able to manage. My wife and I both work- she much more than I- yet we are able to plan and execute. Let us call a spade a spade: cancelling yeshiva on erev Shavous is hypocritical. 

But wait, it gets worse! Many schools have a late opening (or no opening for the girls- maybe their learning isn't as important?) on the day after Shavous. Again, what is the message that we are sending? These are the same schools that open on Sunday even after a late ending Shabbos.

All that I ask for is intellectual honesty.

After being caught molesting young girls Todros Grynhaus was sent to therapy by community leaders and police were only notified two years later

Daily Mail  A respected rabbi who indecently assaulted two teenage girls was sent for therapy by community leaders when allegations of his crimes emerged and was only reported to police two years later.

Todros Grynhaus, 50, a prominent member of the Haredi Orthodox Jewish community in Salford, Greater Manchester, abused the girls, then aged 14 and 15, in the 1990s, the court was told. 

The offences were brought to light when one of the victims told a psychologist about the 'litany of abuse' in 2009.

When senior members of the community heard of the accusations, they suggested Grynhaus, a father-of-ten, receive treatment at a local clinic. They told the court 'no one wanted to report it'. [...]

Schlesinger Twins: Support letter from Rabbi Dovid Eisenberg of Manchester

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.