How Obama Abandoned Israel by Michael Oren - former Israeli ambassador

Wall Street Journal  by Michael Oren - former Israeli Ambassador to America

‘Nobody has a monopoly on making mistakes.” When I was Israel’s ambassador to the United States from 2009 to the end of 2013, that was my standard response to reporters asking who bore the greatest responsibility—President Barack Obama or Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu—for the crisis in U.S.-Israel relations.

I never felt like I was lying when I said it. But, in truth, while neither leader monopolized mistakes, only one leader made them deliberately.

Israel blundered in how it announced the expansion of Jewish neighborhoods and communities in Jerusalem over the border lines that existed before the Six Day War in 1967. On two occasions, the news came out during Mr. Netanyahu’s meetings with Vice President Joe Biden. A solid friend of Israel, Mr. Biden understandably took offense. Even when the White House stood by Israel, blocking hostile resolutions in the United Nations, settlement expansion often continued.

In a May 2011 Oval Office meeting, Mr. Netanyahu purportedly “lectured” Obama about the peace process. Later that year, he was reported to be backing Republican contender Mitt Romney in the presidential elections. This spring, the prime minister criticized Mr. Obama’s Iran policy before a joint meeting of Congress that was arranged without even informing the president. 

Yet many of Israel’s bungles were not committed by Mr. Netanyahu personally. In both episodes with Mr. Biden, for example, the announcements were issued by midlevel officials who also caught the prime minister off-guard. Nevertheless, he personally apologized to the vice president.

Mr. Netanyahu’s only premeditated misstep was his speech to Congress, which I recommended against. Even that decision, though, came in reaction to a calculated mistake by President Obama. From the moment he entered office, Mr. Obama promoted an agenda of championing the Palestinian cause and achieving a nuclear accord with Iran. Such policies would have put him at odds with any Israeli leader. But Mr. Obama posed an even more fundamental challenge by abandoning the two core principles of Israel’s alliance with America.

The first principle was “no daylight.” The U.S. and Israel always could disagree but never openly. Doing so would encourage common enemies and render Israel vulnerable. Contrary to many of his detractors, Mr. Obama was never anti-Israel and, to his credit, he significantly strengthened security cooperation with the Jewish state. He rushed to help Israel in 2011 when the Carmel forest was devastated by fire. And yet, immediately after his first inauguration, Mr. Obama put daylight between Israel and America.

“When there is no daylight,” the president told American Jewish leaders in 2009, “Israel just sits on the sidelines and that erodes our credibility with the Arabs.” The explanation ignored Israel’s 2005 withdrawal from Gaza and its two previous offers of Palestinian statehood in Gaza, almost the entire West Bank and half of Jerusalem—both offers rejected by the Palestinians.

Mr. Obama also voided President George W. Bush’s commitment to include the major settlement blocs and Jewish Jerusalem within Israel’s borders in any peace agreement. Instead, he insisted on a total freeze of Israeli construction in those areas—“not a single brick,” I later heard he ordered Mr. Netanyahu—while making no substantive demands of the Palestinians.

Consequently, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas boycotted negotiations, reconciled with Hamas and sought statehood in the U.N.—all in violation of his commitments to the U.S.—but he never paid a price. By contrast, the White House routinely condemned Mr. Netanyahu for building in areas that even Palestinian negotiators had agreed would remain part of Israel.

The other core principle was “no surprises.” President Obama discarded it in his first meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, in May 2009, by abruptly demanding a settlement freeze and Israeli acceptance of the two-state solution. The following month the president traveled to the Middle East, pointedly skipping Israel and addressing the Muslim world from Cairo.[...]

Gay conversion therapy trial in New Jersey - judges ruling

 NJ Today    A judge has ruled that a New Jersey conversion therapy organization is potentially liable for the costs to repair the damage it inflicted on four young people by using dangerous and discredited efforts it claimed can convert people from gay to straight. That ruling is the subject of a heated trial in Hudson County.

Superior Court Judge Peter F. Bariso Jr. ruled that Jews Offering New Alternatives for Healing (JONAH) and its co-defendants may be liable for three times the amounts the four men paid for subsequent, legitimate therapy to repair the psychological damage caused by the organization’s conversion therapy program. JONAH’s program included nude sessions with counselors and “father-son holding.”

“These self-proclaimed experts inflicted grave damage upon our clients, who believed JONAH’s claims that it could ‘cure’ them of being gay,” said David Dinielli, SPLC deputy legal director. “These young men were left with guilt, shame and frustration. No amount of money can fix the damage JONAH caused, but recognizing that JONAH can be held accountable for the cost of repairing that damage is an important step.”[...]

Pisgat Ze'ev Parents: Keep Arab KIds Away From Ours

Arutz 7      Parents in the Pisgat Ze'ev are demanding that their teenage children be kept away from Arab youths who use the local .community center.

When they moved into the neighborhood, parents in the Pisgat Ze'ev probably never imagined they would have to face a dilemma that has recently crept up on them – joint activities at local youth center where Jewish and Arab youth mix freely.

The activities take place in the local community center, built with Israeli government funds, to service residents of the neighborhood.

In recent years, Arab families from traditionally Arab areas like Beit Hanina have been moving into Jewish neighborhoods in the city, especially Pisgat Ze'ev and French Hill, both of which are next to large Arab areas.

As a result, there is a large population of Arab teens in Pisgat Ze'ev, and they, like Jewish teens, flock to the community center.

But parents of the Jewish teens are very uncomfortable with the situation.

“We do not want our kids interacting with them, at least under these circumstances,” one parent told Arutz Sheva. “The kids sit around and smoke and drink, and G-d knows what else. We do not go to Arab cultural or community institutions, I don't see why they should come to ours. We are very happy with the activities offered by the community center, but very unhappy about the Arab teens attendance.” [...]

'Stop Googling your symptoms', teenage cancer victim told before death

Telegraph

A teenager who begged doctors to take her health fears seriously in the months before she died from a rare cancer was told by medics to "stop Googling your symptoms".

Bronte Doyne died on March 23, 2013, aged 19 - just 16 months after she first complained of severe stomach pains.

In text messages, tweets and personal diary entries, the student expressed her worries that medics were not acting as her health deteriorated.

Doctors dismissed her concerns, leaving her desperate for someone to take her seriously. In one tweet in July 2012, Miss Doyne made a cry for help:

 Finally, after pleading to be taken seriously, she was admitted to hospital where she passed away 10 days later.

Now bosses at the Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust have admitted they "did not listen with sufficient attention" and that they must embrace the "internet age".[...]

The new reality of Orthodox women rabbis

Cross-Currents  by Rabbi Avraham Gordimer

We’re going to blink and there’ll be 100 Orthodox women rabbis in America that have been given ordination”. –R. Adam Mintz, professor of Talmud, Yeshivat Maharat

Within the week, three Orthodox-identified rabbinical ordination programs for women granted semicha (ordination) to their graduating classes. (Please see here and here.) While the mainstream organs of Orthodoxy do not recognize or approve of the ordination of women (here are RCA statements about the matter), the reasons for not accepting the legitimacy of semicha for women remain a mystery to some.

Various articles have been published about the topic (please see here for R. Hershel Schachter’s article); I would like to take one approach and provide some elaboration.

Halachic analysis of contemporary rabbinical ordination of women was first put forth by R. Saul Lieberman (please see here for R. Gil Student’s important presentation thereof), who in 1979 expressed his opposition to such on the part of Jewish Theological Seminary.

Although R. Lieberman’s tenure at JTS was the subject of controversy and was certainly not viewed favorably by Orthodox leadership, R. Lieberman was Orthodox and was very well-versed in our topic; his ruling on it is thus quite pivotal and precedential. R. Lieberman’s position was discussed in my initial article on rabbinical ordination for women, but that article focused more on the definition of Mesorah (Torah tradition). Let us turn here to the actual issue of semicha for women.

R. Lieberman demonstrates that even though modern-day semicha is not the original semicha that was conferred by Moshe upon Yehoshua and that continued to be conferred upon subsequent scholars until one-and-a-half a millennia ago, modern-day semicha is most certainly a carryover and model of the original semicha. The original semicha empowered one to serve as dayan, rabbinic judge, and that is exactly what contemporary semicha represents, as evidenced in the earliest of rabbinic literature that discusses the purpose and function of contemporary semicha. Since women cannot serve as rabbinic judges (Shulchan Aruch Choshen Mishpat 7:4, with the exception of cases of binding arbitration, in which the status of dayan is forgone [Sanhedrin 24, Rambam Hil. Sanhederin 7:2] – and modern-day semicha is decidedly not modeled on this), the rabbinical ordination of women is not valid and is distortive of the very essence of semicha. To grant semicha to women makes no sense, and to do so would “make ourselves objects of derision and jest”, proclaimed R. Lieberman.

The end of the matter is that it is clear from the sources that being called by the title “rav” (“Rabbi he shall be called”) reflects on the fitness to issue legal decisions and to judge, and we should not empty the title “rav” of its meaning from the way it has been understood by the Jewish people throughout the generations. Since a woman is not fit to judge, and she cannot become qualified for this…

Those who promote the ordination of women as rabbis either erroneously assert that modern-day semicha is a novel contrivance that has no controlling precedent, or they turn to the example of Devorah the Prophetess, who judged the Jewish People. (Shoftim 4:4)  However, Devorah did not have semicha and did not sit on the Sanhedrin. Rishonim (medieval halachic authorities) explain that she either was a leader and teacher, that she practiced binding arbitration, that she provided instruction for dayanim, or the like. To use Devorah – someone who did not have semicha and did not qualify for it – as the precedent for women rabbis is quite a stretch.

Unfortunately, many of those involved with the ordination of women lack fealty to the fundamentals of Torah. For example, one of the women just ordained with “Maharat” semicha rejects halachic marriage, and she has created her own alternatives to Kiddushin and Nisu’in, halachic marriage, as presented in her book Tradition and Equality in Jewish Marriage: Beyond the Sanctification of Subordination.

One of the rabbis who ordained two women last week at an Orthodox-identified coed semicha program has written that one need not believe that the Torah reflects accurate facts and that it was dictated to Moshe via oral prophecy. This rabbi, who prominently touts his Orthodox credentials, has written that God did not necessarily speak to Moshe in a literal sense, but that the entirety of Torah was a non-historical development in which God communicated by placing His existence and truth in man’s heart:

The significance of the biblical narrative according to this tradition rests not in its historical accuracy but in the underlying spiritual content.

The purpose of the Torah, according to the “sod” tradition is not to convey historical truths but rather to gesture toward a deeper and more profound spiritual reality. It is possible, then, to accept that the Torah in its current form is the product of historical circumstance and a prolonged editorial process while simultaneously stubbornly asserting the religious belief that it none the less enshrouds Divine revelation.

God stirs our hearts and He stirs in our hearts; that is the revelation. The rest is interpretation.

This rabbi’s theology is extremely close, if not identical, to the Conservative movement’s notion of a divinely-inspired Torah – which is hence not literal, not fully binding, and is subject to evolving revelation/modification, for it was not actually commanded to Moshe at Sinai.

Inclusion and acceptance of rabbis who proffer heretical views has sadly become de rigueur in the “Open Orthodox” rabbinate, whether dealing with the ordination of women or anything else. One musmach of Open Orthodoxy, whose apostasy is well-known (please see here for older material, and here, here, here, etc. for more recent assertions of this rabbi that the Torah was written by men), was recently honored by International Rabbinic Fellowship (IRF), the Open Orthodox rabbinic organization (whose vice president is a female rabbi), to serve as editor of a new book about the halachic significance of brain death. Apparently, IRF is not bothered by the fact that the editor of its new halachic publication denies the Torah’s singular divine authorship.

The chair of the department of Talmud at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT) recently reposted his approach to Torah She-b’al Peh, the Oral Law:

Chazal were the R. Riskin’s of their time. They too were committed to creating a yiddishkeit which is in constant dialogue with their ethical sensibilities. They read Torah with a critical lens and whenever they encountered a perceived injustice they did whatever they could (within legitimate boundaries) to undo the challenging misread.

This week’s parsha is a perfect example. 

Simply read, the biblical sotah procedure seems capricious and patriarchal. The rabbis, incorporating Divinely ordained hermeneutics, drastically revised the procedure. The result: a process that is sensitive and somewhat egalitarian. 

They were the progressives of their time, and, relative to their milieu, quite radical. They too were vilified, but in the end they prevailed. Ultimately their enterprise received the divine imprimatur. 

It is because of their courage that Rabbinic Judaism is still around today. Their interpretations allowed Judaism to survive, thrive and ultimately triumph.

This rabbi describes Chazal, the Sages of the Talmud, as revising Torah law to meet their own sense of ethics, and that the hermeneutic tools for this are divinely-sourced, granting Chazal poetic license, as it were, to reform Biblical Law that they find objectionable. This radical approach to halachic authorship is clearly contradicted by the Rambam in his Introduction to Mishneh Torah and his Introduction to Perek Chelek, Yes, Chazal have at their disposal certain legislative tools, but reforming the interpretation of Biblical Law to conform to human ethics is not in the arsenal and violates the divine character of Torah Law. Please read the referenced words of the Rambam and see for yourself.

Although it does not pose the stark theological objections discussed heretofore, a YCT rabbinical student and his bride recently created a novel wedding ceremony, whose link was proudly posted in various fora by YCT rabbinic leadership:

We made a list of particular needs that we had, and researched potential solutions. We wanted the women to feel involved during the tisch, we wanted the bedeken to be a moment where we each covered the other, and we wanted female participation under the chuppah. 

As I was marched in, on my brothers’ shoulders, for the bedeken I covered Marti’s face, and she too covered me. She replaced my regular kippah, with a new kippah that she made for me. As I kneeled in front of her, it was one of the holiest moments of my life. 

Our good friend, Rabbi Rachel Silverman, recited it (an eighth beracha, for the Sheva Berachos) for us under

It is regrettable that Open Orthodoxy is becoming the new Conservative movement, but that is precisely what is happening. Denial of a Singular Divine Author of the Torah, denial of the objective truth of Torah She-b’al Peh, ordaining women rabbis, creating gender-modified rituals, andso much more; the “Orthodoxy” has been swallowed up by the “Open”.

The Torah requires the Jew to subordinate his ideologies and actions to God, to the objectively true and authentic mandate of Sinai. Reshaping Judaism as we see fit has no place in this mandate. Let us recommit to Hashem and the eternal, unchanging charge of Sinai, and pray that all of our brothers and sisters will join us.

Shalom Task force discusses the little known issue of batttered husbands

Shalom Task Force

The Battered Husband by Barbara Bensoussan describes a little known issue: husbands who are abused by their wifes. The Shalom Task Force Hotline receives over 1000 calls a year and 5% of those calls come from Jewish Orthodox men. Barbara interviewed both Sharron Russ and Meir Rizel, Shalom Task Force’s Director of Men’s Education, and shared their stories and experiences with her readers.

 When Chaim got married 15 years ago, he never anticipated that his wedded bliss would degenerate into a nightmare. “For the first few years everything was more or less okay, although my wife Naomi never wanted to participate in any family gatherings on my side of the family,” he says. “My siblings tried to welcome her, but she never seemed interested. My sister thinks Naomi was intimidated by us. The result was, I was prevented from participating much in family events.” Chaim wanted to make his marriage work even when his wife was difficult, especially because they had children right away. The first few arrived in rapid succession, and the third had some developmental issues. Chaim was learning in kollel, and money became very tight. “Maybe it was the stress of lots of kids so fast, plus Naomi working so hard, and us never having enough money that made everything start to unravel,” he speculates. “She was also a perfectionist who always wanted our Shabbos meals to be fancy and the house just so.” After several years of this stress, Naomi started becoming extremely demanding. By then Chaim had dropped afternoon seder and begun working in a local grocery store to make ends meet. Since Chaim had a break between morning seder and going to work, Naomi used to leave him a long list of things she wanted done: shopping, housework, paperwork for their daughter’s special programs, forms for government assistance programs (because of their low income). “If I didn’t manage to do everything she wanted me to, oy vey!” Chaim relates. “She’d start screaming so loud our neighbors used to hear, which was a terrible chillul Hashem. Or she’d punish me by saying I wasn’t allowed to touch the supper she’d made, and if I tried to take a pot to make myself something, she’d scream that I wasn’t allowed to touch her pots. Very often I’d go to bed hungry to avoid making more of a scene in front of the kids.” Chaim was increasingly miserable as the years went on, but he felt responsible for his six children. How could I leave my kids with a crazy woman? he thought. How would the children find shidduchim if their parents divorced? But Naomi’s mental health only seemed to deteriorate. Naomi’s sleeping habits became very erratic; she’d be up all night obsessing about her terrible life, lack of money, and stress. She expected Chaim to keep her company all night long. “When my eyes began closing of their own accord, she’d pour water on me to wake me up, then laugh at my reaction,” Chaim says. “One night she threw my tallis bag clear across the living room. “She stopped caring who saw her behavior. Once she came into the store where I worked and began throwing cans of food at me. Someone called Hatzolah, but she ran away, and when one of the men approached her and tried to convince her to come with him, she refused.”  [....]

Breaking News: Leading UK Muslim activist accuses the Mossad of stealing one of his shoes!

Rivky Stein - self proclaimed aguna and alleged victim of severe abuse and slavery from her husband - where are you now?

update: Added her motion objecting to her lawyers dropping her case. [I removed her address and phone number by using ocr - which caused some minor errors in text]

It has been a long time since Rivky Stein - wife of Yoel Weiss - has been in the news or mentioned on this blog. To refresh your memory I copied the news items she has on her website  http://www.redeemrivky.com/in-the-news.html . It is still up - though apparently inactive.

Does that mean that her supporters have deserted her - as her lawyers allegedly have - because they don't believe what she claims? Or perhaps it means that being part of a lynch mob - stirred up by lies - is a hard act to sustain. It is exciting when a young lady stirs rage and indignation against an Orthodox Jewish husband - but it is boring when no evidence comes to support her incitement and there is always a new lynch mob forming to attack religious Jews. In fact the only evidence that has come out supports the husband's contention that his wife is very creative as a spinner of fictitious tales.

For those who joined the lynch mob based on headlines like the following - where is your honesty? None of the newspaper have printed retractions or apologies and none of Rifky's supporters has had the guts to admit they were wrong. Why not? If you tried to insult and defame Yoel from a mistaken belief you were helping a helpless victim of domestic abuse - don't you think you should acknowledge that you were mistaken and offer an apology?

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

EXCLUSIVE: Orthodox Jewish wife who claims she was 'raped, beaten and starved' by husband who refused divorce tells U.S. court he 'let her daughter play with his genitals'

He won’t part with her — or his money.

An Orthodox Jewish man who is refusing to grant his wife a divorce bragged about beating the system and hiding his money from the government, his bitter spouse told a Brooklyn judge Wednesday.

‘Get’ Case Heads to Brooklyn Supreme CourtRivky Stein testifies against her husband, who won’t grant her a Jewish divorce

'Raped on her wedding night, beaten while pregnant then starved and tortured by her own husband' but still DENIED a divorce: Orthodox Jewish woman fights for religious separation as partner laughs at her in court

An Orthodox Jewish woman, desperate to obtain a religious divorce, broke down and sobbed on the witness stand Thursday as she accused her husband of raping and starving her.

Orthodox Jewish woman launches social media campaign to convince her husband to grant her a religious divorceWith the help of family and friends, Rivky Stein, 24, created a Facebook page detailing her purportedly nightmarish relationship with hubby Yoel Weiss, 31, whom she married in a religious ceremony shortly after she turned 18 years old, in 2008. Weiss denies he's stalling, saying he will grant the get after the custody battle is hashed out.

Brooklyn woman turns to Facebook to get Jewish divorce. Rivky Stein launches campaign to convince husband to grant her religious writ of divorce and raise awareness in her

community.

Orthodox Jewish Woman Fights for the Right to a Divorce

When Rivky Stein was just 18 years old, she married Yoel Weiss, a man eight years her

senior from a wealthy family who had been courting her. However, as soon as the wedding

was over, she saw a scary side of her new husband.

 Orthodox Jewish Wife Turns To Social Media In Fight For Religious Divorce

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — An Orthodox Jewish woman has launched a social media campaign to help in her bid to obtain a religious divorce.

 (JTA) — An Orthodox Jewish woman in New York has launched a campaign on social media to force her husband to give her a religious divorce. Friends of Rivky Stein, 24, of Brooklyn, launched a Facebook page earlier this month calling on her common-law husband, Yoel Weiss, 31, to grant her the get. Stein married Weiss in a religious ceremony six years ago shortly after she turned 18; the couple never filed for a civil marriage certificate.

EXCLUSIVE - 'Raped, tormented and locked in a room to starve with her two babies': The shocking claims of a young Jewish mother who found the courage to flee her husband but is still 'chained' because he refuses to grant religious divorce

   Rifky Stein's Opposition to Mishcon Motion to Withdraw 

Case closed against policeman who beat Ethiopian soldier

YNET

The policeman caught on camera beating Damas Pakada, an IDF soldier of Ethiopian descent, will not face criminal charges, Attorney-General Yehuda Weinstein decided on Sunday.

Weinstein decided to adopt the recommendation of State Prosecutor Shai Nitzan and that of the Police Investigation Unit to close the case against the police officer.

However, the Police Investigation Unit recommended the case will be transferred to the Police Disciplinary Tribunal to examine the police officer's conduct.

The video of the beating led to an outcry by Israeli Ethiopians, who marched in protests around Israel in an attempt to raise awareness of discrimination, racism and police brutality. Protesters blocked major roads in Tel Aviv, and scores were wounded and arrested in clashes with police.

The Justice Ministry said the evidence in the case, including the video, shows that "after the policeman asked the soldier repeatedly to leave the site because of a suspicious package nearby, and the soldier refused and pushed the policeman, the policeman used force to remove the soldier. In response, the soldier punched the policeman and in return the policeman punched the soldier."

According to the statement, the policemen behaved "impeccably" in the situation.[....]

Rachel Dolezal: Does it matter if she is black or white? Can a person claim any identity he wants?

Spokesman-Review

Controversy is swirling around one of the Inland Northwest’s most prominent civil rights activists, with family members of Rachel Dolezal saying the local leader of the NAACP has been falsely portraying herself as black for years.

Dolezal, 37, avoided answering questions directly about her race and ethnicity Thursday, saying, “I feel like I owe my executive committee a conversation” before engaging in a broader discussion with the community about what she described as a “multi-layered” issue.

“That question is not as easy as it seems,” she said after being contacted at Eastern Washington University, where she’s a part-time professor in the Africana Studies Program. “There’s a lot of complexities … and I don’t know that everyone would understand that.”

Later, in an apparent reference to studies tracing the scientific origins of human life to Africa, Dolezal added: “We’re all from the African continent.”

Christian Science Monitor

Rachel Doleza is a prominent figure in the Washington state civil rights community, but since the story of her dishonesty about her racial background broke, her name has become a worldwide social media trend.

Ms. Dolezal has headed up the local chapter of the The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) in Spokane, Wash., since January. For many years, she has identified herself as at least as partly African-American.

But this week, when questions were raised about the veracity of some of her claims, her Montana parents came forward and said Dolezal is not black, but Caucasian. Her mother showed pictures of her as a blue-eyed, blonde child. [...]

Shamed Nobel laureate Tim Hunt ruined by stupid remarks

The Guardian

The beleaguered British biologist Sir Tim Hunt has revealed that he was forced to resign from his post at University College London (UCL) without being given a chance to explain his controversial remarks about women in science. “I have been hung out to dry,” he told the Observer in an exclusive interview. “I have been stripped of all the things I was doing in science. I have no further influence.”

Hunt, who won the Nobel prize in 2001 for his work on cell biology, was the focus of widespread controversy last week after suggesting at a conference in Seoul that women in science were disruptive and prone to crying. He has since apologised for his remarks, which were supposed to be ironic and jocular, he said.

However, as a result of the furore, Hunt was told by UCL that he would have to resign his honorary post at the college. “At no point did they ask me for an explanation for what I said or to put it in context,” he told the Observer. “They just said I had to go. There has been an enormous rush to judgment in dealing with me.”[...]

However, several senior female scientists last week came forward to defend Hunt, including the physicist Dame Athene Donald, the biologist Professor Ottoline Leyser, and the physiologist Dame Nancy Rothwell. All three, although critical of Hunt’s specific remarks about women, spoke warmly about his past support for younger scientists of either gender. “Many will testify to Tim’s great support and encouragement for younger scientists, both male and female. Indeed, he has trained and mentored some outstanding female scientists,” said Rothwell.

Hunt last night issued a detailed apology. “I am extremely sorry for the remarks made during the recent Women in Science lunch at the world conference of science journalists in Seoul, Korea,” he said. [...]

Todros Grynhaus: Victim's father claims his daughter and witnesses were threatened during the recent trial of

Paul Harris    Editor/Managing Director of the Jewish Telegraph asked me to post this article.

Jewish Telegraph Todros, 50, was convicted at Manchester Crown Court of two charges of sexual abuse against two females and is awaiting sentencing.

A further charge against a male victim is believed to be awaiting a decision, depending on the sentence, on whether or not it would be in the public interest to bring it to court.

"Certain people were threatening my daughter," the father of the girl told the Jewish Telegraph.

"The children of other witnesses were threatened. It was horrendous.

"There were people who were so determined to avoid a guilty verdict that they were threatening right, left and centre.

"They attacked my daughter's personal morality. She is extremely upset that the community didn't support her."

He said his daughter had been "very strong", but that other victims had been afraid to come forward, while religious leaders had been afraid to give evidence because of intimidation from Grynhaus' supporters, self-appointed askanim (community activists).

The victim's father claimed that a letter had been circulated within the charedi community appealing for support for Mr Grynhaus, who was described as a righteous person, "allegedly accused by the completely invalid testimony of women".

The letter was removed from circulation only when it was later discovered that one of its rabbinic signatories had denied having authorised it.

The father alleged that the batei din of Manchester, London and Kedassia had refused to become involved in the case and support the victims, describing it as "a cover-up"

Todros' father, Rabbi Dovid Grynhaus, is a dayan on the ultra-Orthodox Kedassia Beth Din, although there is no suggestion of any wrong-doing on his part.

The case was eventually reported to the police on the advice of the Gateshead Rav, Rabbi Shraga Zimmerman who, it is claimed, is, as a result, now persona non-grata within certain sections of Manchester's charedi community.

Rabbi Zimmerman refused to comment to the Jewish Telegraph. Also refusing to comment was Mr Grynhaus' cousin, Rabbi Gershon Miller, of Gateshead, who appeared as a prosecution witness. Dayan Osher Westheim and Dayan Chanoch Ehrentreu, formerly of the London Beth Din, both of whom are believed to have supported the victims, also refused to comment.

Among those attending the court proceedings were chairman of governors of Yesoiday Hatorah School, Modche Halpern, Bnos Yisroel School governor Dovid Adler and Yehuda Aryeh Lobenstein. All also refused to comment to the Jewish Telegraph.

The victim's father, a charedi, said: "A lot of money was spent getting one of the top barristers to defend Grynhaus. Hundreds of thousands of pounds were spent to try to convince the jury that he was innocent.

"It was very close to convincing. What the community should be thinking about is that people were threatened into not speaking out. Should cowboys, like in the Wild West, be running the show?"

The daughter of the man who spoke to the Jewish Telegraph was a lodger at the age of 14 at the Grynhaus home while attending a Manchester Jewish secondary school.

Her father received a phone call in the middle of the night from an American rebbetzen whose husband had been consulted when Mrs Grynhaus had found her husband in bed with the girl.

The girl's parents were told that inappropriate behaviour had taken place and that their daughter should leave the Grynhaus home immediately, which she did.

Mr Grynhaus offered the girl £1,000 to pay for counselling.

The girl's father alleges this offer became a crucial admission of guilt for the police.

Mr Grynhaus later persuaded the girl to leave school at the earliest opportunity for fear that she might speak of her experiences.

The father said: "A teacher asked her at one point if everything was OK. If she had only said no, then the whole thing could have been stopped. But she did not have it in her because she was a victim. He persuaded her to leave and she got a job at 16.

"She has been through a lot. She had to be tremendously strong. But it is not always easy at all for her."

This week, she was too ill to speak to the Jewish Telegraph.

Mr Grynhaus, a father-of-ten, was a teacher for many years at Manchester Jewish Grammar School, now Mesivta, and other local schools.

There is no suggestion that anyone mentioned in this story was involved in intimidation or any other wrong-doing.

Mendel Epstein Get by Torture Trial: Jay Goldstein's motion for acquittal or new trial

  Jay Goldstein Motion 5.26.2015

Rav Dovid Eidensohn Shiur 11# Even Hoezer – Various Coercion and ONESS with a GET

Telephone conference dial 605-562-3130 code is 411161# Wed night June 10 9:30.

1. If a husband gives his wife a GET and makes a condition that if he does not return in a month the GET is valid, and he approaches but the bridge is down and he cannot come, this is ONESSS but such an ONESS does not invalidate the GET. Kesubose 3A.

2. The above gemora seems to say that a real ONESSS would invalidate the GET, but such an ONESS about a bridge not functioning is something the husband should have anticipated, but other ONESS does invalidate the GET. But Rambam in Gerushin 9:8 seems to say that all ONESS is not counted to invalidate a GET, but a GET made on a condition and the condition is fulfilled the GET is kosher, even if the fulfillment was through ONESS.

3. If there is an ONESS from heaven and not from people, some say it invalidates the GET and some disagree. HaGahose Maimoni Rambam Gerushin 9:1.

4. Shulchan Aruch Even Hoezer 134:5: “If the husband swore to give his wife a GET, he must allow a Beth Din to negate his oath, so that his GET should not appear to be coerced. But if the husband wishes to pledge money to force him to give the GET, he may do this. Because this is not similar to coercion.”

5. But what is the difference between being forced by an oath to divorce when the coercion is only “appears” to be coercion, but not real coercion, whereas if one pledges that if he does not divorce his wife he will give such and such a sum of money, it is fine and does not even “appear” to be coercion?

6. Let us examine carefully the wording of the Shulchan Aruch “If the husband swore to give his wife a GET, he must allow a Beth Din to negate his oath, so that his GET should not appear to be coerced.” Note the word “appear.” The issue is whether divorcing because of an oath makes an “appearance” of a coerced and thus invalid GET. But “appear” means just that, that it is really not invalid, but has the appearance of being invalid. It is not sure if “appear” invalidates the GET in any sense, dirabonon or maybe lichatchilo or not.

7. The Baar Haitiv there says “the oath is like coercion.” He does not say, “The oath is coercion.” Obviously, it is not. But it appears to be coercion, whatever that means.

8. The Taz there says, “Since he willingly swore and obligated himself it is not real coercion, only an appearance of such.” Yes, he willingly swore and obligated himself, but once he is obligated because of his oath, the GET is given with coercion.

9. Again, at the giving of the GET, the husband is faced with a coercion: if he does not give the GET he will have to pay a large sum of money. Why is this not a coercion?

10. The Beis Yosef at the end of EH 154 brings the Ritva. A husband swore he would divorce his wife and gave the GET without negating the oath. The husband then claimed he was forced to give the GET because of his oath. The Ritva says that the GET is kosher. True, the husband must divorce as long as he made an oath to give the GET. But the husband should have found a way to negate his oath or to make a MODAH, a statement that his giving the GET is not valid. Lacking these, the husband must give the GET because of his oath, but why does he have the oath? Because one: he made it, not somebody else. Two, he could negate the oath at a Beth Din by explaining why it should be negated. Third of all, he could have made a MODAH, a statement that would negate the giving of the GET.

11. The Bais Yosef brings a Rashbo VII:40 that would seem to disagree with the Ritvah. The Rashbo has a case where a husband pledged a large sum of money to be paid if he did not divorce his wife. The Rashbo says that the GET is invalid, as it was forced upon the husband by his pledge to pay a large sum of money.

12. The Rashbo says there some rules regarding a GET given under pressure. If we know that he is forced, such as the above case where witnesses and others knew of his obligation and promise to pay the large sum if he did not divorce his wife, such a public knowledge of ONESS negates the GET.

13. However, if the husband has a pressure to divorce and is paid money, we assume that the money won him over and he gives the GET willingly. The amount of money to be paid is not clear in the Rashbo. Some hold that there is no monetary value on a wife but we don’t know what the Rashbo meant, although the Teshuva of the Rashbo in VII:40 is talking about a person who pledged a thousand Dinar which is a large sum.

14. Even if the husband is paid a large sum of money but he was pressured, he may make a Mesiras Modah, to tell two witnesses that he is being forced and does not want the GET to be valid and it is not valid.

15. In such a case of Mesiras Modah, there are ways of negating the Modah such as by saying that all statements of witnesses that he negated the GET will be void.

16. The Rashbo there says there that ONESS of losing money is ONESS to negate the GET even if the husband did not declare his negation, we know he is being forced and the GET is void. [...]