Rav Belsky's Beis Din Issues Siruv against Aish HaTorah New York

update: Fetman's Defense

Background - this is related to the alleged embezzlement of $20 million from Aish HaTorah by Yaakov Fetman. That case was arbitrated by Rav Dovid Cohen who ruled in favor of Aish HaTorah. Fetman refused to comply with Rav Dovid Cohen's ruling. Aish HaTorah went to secular court to recover the money - and the secular court supported Rav Cohen's ruling. The following link provides detailed legal documents regarding the matter and clearly supports the position of Aish HaTorah
=============================
Legal Documents regarding this case

http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/3dseries/2015/2015_50997.htm
http://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/motions/2015/2015_78427.htm

 type aish hatorah Fetman in search window

http://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/lawReporting/Search
--------------------------------------
Forward    $20M Charity Embezzlement Case Shows Power of Rabbinic Courts

In late December 2013, a prominent Brooklyn rabbi made an eye-popping ruling in his rabbinic court: The former chief financial officer of an Orthodox charity called Aish Hatorah New York owed the charity $20 million that he had allegedly stolen.

That startling sum amounted to roughly three times the charity’s annual budget, or more than five times the charity’s net assets. If the former CFO, Jacob Fetman, actually took that much from Aish, it would amount to the largest Jewish charity fraud in recent memory.

What followed the ruling was legal pandemonium, in the form of a year and a half of battles that moved into the secular court system. In the meantime, in December 2014, Brooklyn’s district attorney filed criminal charges against Fetman, alleging that he had embezzled funds from the charity — though the DA charged that he had taken $236,000; a significant sum, to be sure, but a mere fraction of the rabbinic court’s ruling. Fetman has pleaded not guilty to this criminal charge. [...]

The Aish case was seen before Rabbi Dovid Cohen, a highly respected religious scholar who leads Congregation Gvul Yaabetz in Brooklyn.

The decisions of rabbinical courts, like those of any arbitrator, are difficult to amend or reverse in civil courts. In New York, state law allows arbitration awards to be overturned only in cases of corruption, fraud or partiality by the arbitrator, among a handful of other narrow reasons.

“It’s not exactly a rubber stamp, but it’s a pretty flexible stamp,” Resnicoff said. [...]

In late December 2013, Aish Hatorah filed in New York State Supreme Court in Brooklyn to enforce the rabbi’s judgment. A judge ruled largely in the charity’s favor in September 2014, upping the judgment to $21.4 million to include interest. Fetman’s attorneys immediately said that they intended to appeal the ruling; those papers are due in late June. In the meantime, the two sides have continued to fight before the original civil court judge, as Fetman’s lawyers have petitioned her to rehear the case. Decisions on at least one of those petitions are still pending. [...]

 Rav Dovid Cohen's letter just received regarding this case 

 Email sent by the Director General of Aish HaTorah

From: Steven Burg

Date: 20 July 2015 03:26:11 BST

To: undisclosed-recipients:;

Subject: Fwd: HaRav Dovid Cohen on Aish NY vs. Fetman case

Dear Aish Team, 

In response to the many emails that are going around concerning a siruv regarding Aish NY:;

Aish NY's former CFO, who left in 2013, has lost in beis din after admitting guilt and then lost in US Supreme Court of Kings County and very recently lost again on his appeal to retry the case [google: NY Law Journal article] It seems he is now attempting to retry matters of the case in another beis din.

Enclosed, please find a letter from Rav Dovid Cohen expressing his thoughts on another beis din attempting to retry matters.

Below you can see a general outline of the case put together by Aish NY.  If anyone receiving this email feels the need, for any reason, please call HaRav Dovid Cohen to verify this yourself. 

-----------------------

Aish HaTorah Responds to Inquiries Regarding New York State Supreme Court’s Decision Confirming Arbitration Award and Indictment of Former CFO

--Organization pursuing all means of collecting judgment against Jacob Fetman; Remains focused on its mission to reintroduce Jews to their heritage—

New York, New York, July 19, 2015  -- In response to another attempt made by Aish HaTorah NY's former CFO to retry a case that has already been decided,  Rabbonim and attorneys have advised Aish HaTorah NY not to respond to old allegations in a new beis din.

For further clarification:  Aish HaTorah NY, a non-profit organization dedicated to reintroducing Jews to their heritage, confirms that on September 29, 2014, Justice Carolyn Demarest of the New York State Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Aish HaTorah NY’s petition to confirm an arbitration award against Jacob Fetman.  Mr. Fetman previously served as chief financial officer of Aish HaTorah NY for 17 years.  His employment was terminated in October 2013 upon discovery that he had stolen considerable sums of money from the organization during his tenure.

Subsequent to Mr. Fetman’s termination, Aish HaTorah NY and Mr. Fetman mutually agreed to resolve the matter through Rabbinic arbitration, which is binding in the State of New York.  Based on the findings of a forensic accountant and other evidence, the arbitrator ruled on December 17, 2013 that Mr. Fetman owes Aish HaTorah NY $20 million.  In his written ruling, the arbitrator, Rav Dovid Cohen, advised the parties that “all properties and entities that can be traced, that they belong or are controlled by Mr. Fetman can be confiscated by Aish HaTorah” in satisfaction of the ruling.

Mr. Fetman refused to adhere to the arbitrator’s ruling, in turn prompting Aish HaTorah NY to seek and now receive affirmation of the ruling by the New York Supreme Court, Kings County.

A spokesperson for Aish HaTorah NY said, “We presented indisputable evidence before an arbitrator and the New York State Supreme Court, including an admission of guilt, that Mr. Fetman stole considerable sums of money from the organization.  We have now received affirmation of the arbitrator’s award and will pursue all available legal remedies to collect the judgment against Mr. Fetman.”

In addition to seeking legal recourse against Mr. Fetman, Aish HaTorah NY’s Board of Directors engaged the law firm of Patterson Belknap to conduct an independent investigation of the organization’s internal policies, procedures and controls, which have since been bolstered to exceed regulatory requirements, in order to prevent the organization from being victimized in a similar manner in the future.

On December 4, 2014 Brooklyn District Attorney Ken Thompson announced that Mr. Fetman was indicted for embezzling money from Aish HaTorah NY.

The Board of Directors of Aish NY have said that “We are pleased that the New York State Supreme Court has affirmed the arbitrator’s decision and will pursue all available legal remedies to recoup the organization’s money.   While the Board actively addresses this matter, we want to assure everyone that Aish HaTorah NY is committed to ensuring that its mission – which is dedicated to revitalizing the Jewish world by reintroducing Jews to their heritage through a dynamic and rapidly expanding social and educational network committed to a worldwide renaissance of the Jewish people – is always conducted with honesty and integrity, maintaining the highest values internally, just as it tries to promote these values in those it seeks to guide.  It should be further noted that all actions taken by Aish HaTorah NY and its board of directors have been taken after consultation with Rabbinic authorities and we are following Rabbinic guidance in proceeding forward."

Warm regards,

Steve Burg

Director General - Mankal

Aish HaTorah

One Western Wall Plaza

 



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

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

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn, I am lost here. Are you seriously bringing Rabbi Beslky's Beis Din as an authority? Do you believe that Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din can be viewed as a Beis Din that follows the halacha - not emotion - at all times?

It is important to note:

1) that Rabbi Belsky, in 2004, declared himself as the "Ave Beis Din of Brooklyn" when he attempted to nullify a marriage on what the major poskim termed "laughable grounds".

2) Rabbi Belsky was recorded saying that he permitted Avraham Rubin to be beaten, in Avraham Rubin's absence and Avraham Rubin never agreed to hav Rabbi Belsky, Mordy Wollmark, Medel Epstein and Aryeh Ralbag serve as dayanim for him.

3) Rav Elyashiv said that he permitted married women (women without a valid get) to cohabit with, or marry, other men making their children mamzeirim.

4) Rabbi Belsky is known to be a deeply emotional person with a terrible temper. Can a tempersome person be a dayan?

5) Rabbi Belsky holds the dishonorable distinction of being on Rav Pam's dislike list and it is claimed that they wouldn't even greet each other with a "Good Shabbos", despite the fact that they both worked together in Torah V'daas.

6) Rabbi Belsky's judgment in coming to defense of Dovid Weinberger was highly, and publicly, criticized by the rabbonim of the Five Towns. Can His judgment ever be trusted on its own?

7) Do any of the "dayanim" on Rabbi Belsky's Beis Din have semicha from anyone other than Rabbi Belsky? If so, from whom?

Please excuse me if I misunderstood the post over here.

Aish HaTorah case: In defense of Yaakov Fetman

An unnamed attorney familiar with the case who supports Yaakov Fetman asked me to post the following  points and documents.  [SEE previous post with Aish HaTorah documents]

It is very important is to state that R' Belsky Siruv against Aish has NOTHING to do with Yaakov Fetman's case... Aish is just trying to besmirch Fetman so people will not read that the Siruv is against them for a case brought by someone else all together.

Furthermore he states that Rav Dovid Cohen was never a part of any proceedings with Shmuel Lefkowitz and in fact stated that he HAS NO BAIS DIN and never sat to Bais Din of three dayanim!

Finally I am shocked that people 'trash' R' Belsky - I think its really incredible and unbelievable and shows the depths Aish could sink to. I for one would like to make a 'Mechaa' for this chillul HaShem.

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

With regards to the allegations against Jacob Fetman, an attorney familiar with the case points out that Justice Demarest in her decision to confirm Rabbi Cohen's award of $20,000,000 (twenty million dollars), made it clear that she did not review the merits of the case - her focus was to confirm or reject this award. As it is the public policy in NY state to uphold arbitration awards and because of the fact that there were no transcripts of the arbitration sessions (4 sessions totaling 140 minutes) she had no choice but to confirm the award - despite her reservations about Fetman's allegations of the many violations of his Due Process. For example, in court it was acknowledged that a forensic report, which R' Cohen bases his award on, was never provided to Fetman and in fact, once the judge ordered Aish to produce it (April 25, 2015 - almost 18 months after the award was issued), it was found to be dated AFTER the last session and on the date of the AWARD. Clearly, there was no chance for Fetman to dispute any of its 'findings'.

It is note worthy that a criminal complaint which was alleged by Aish against Jacob Fetman is still pending in Brooklyn Supreme court for the alleged theft of $236,000 over five years - Mr. Fetman plead Not Guilty to this allegation and a trial is pending.

While Aish is a wonderful organization, with a very important mission, in court papers it was alleged by Fetman that executive compensation was substantially under reported and disguised as activities. Rabbi Greenman's compensation over 2012 reported as (aish 990 filing) $101,409 taxable income and an additional $94,000 non taxable income was in fact almost double that. David Markowitz's taxable compensation of $62,500 with an additional $50,000 non taxable compensation was in fact about $150,000. 2013 reported income for Rabbi Greenman was $118,310 taxable and combined compensation (with non taxable compensation) $216,929. Aish chose not to divulge any other executive compensation.

If the allegation against Fetman is correct - Aish NY, an organization with an internal budget of about $3 million dollars annually could have not "noticed" that $1.2 million annually was being stolen from it?? Why is it that Aish will not submit to examination of the 'forensic report' - what was the rush to issue an award when an attorney intervened on behalf of Fetman?

See attached Justice Demarest's decision that Aish must produce the 'forensic report' to Fetman - when it was acknowledged that Fetman never received it. The award was issued 12/17/2013 - This decision by the court is 4/25/2015.

  Fetman vs Aish HaTorah Decision of Judge Demarest 

See the attached DA statement - Aish NY used Fetman and Merkaz the Center as a funnel to transfer monies from Project Inspire to Aish NY. Hundreds of thousand of dollars were transferred this way.

Lastly, see Dan Stein's (Fetman's original attorney and now the Chief of the Criminal Division at the US attorney General's Office NY Western District) letter to R' Cohen right after the award was issued and another letter to Mel Zachter, a noted accountant who agreed to examine the 'forensic report' but Aish never agreed.

This case is about blackmail.

Leukemia Charity Spent Less Than 1% of Donations on Patients, Suit Says

ABC News   On Monday, New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman and his office filed a lawsuit in state Supreme Court against the National Children's Leukemia Foundation as well as its founder, Steve Shor, who allegedly pocketed more than $1 million in salary and perks while running the Brooklyn-based charity out of the basement of his home. 

In court documents, investigators accused the organization of using "false and misleading materials to solicit and collect millions of dollars from individuals and businesses all over the country" since at least 2009. 

Schneiderman said despite what professional telemarketers told unsuspecting donors, the foundation did not have a bone marrow registry, an umbilical cord blood bank or a cancer research center and it had not fulfilled the wishes of sick children since 2009. 

Of the nearly $13 million that the foundation raised between April 2009 and March 2013, court papers said, less than 1 percent of the monies was spent on young patients and "at most" 6 percent on its programs. In court papers, investigators accused the foundation of not being a "large and effective organization" as it presented itself to the office's Charities Bureau, but a "one-man operation .... with three respondents rubber-stamping Shor's decisions." 

"If you're going to raise funds for children for what may be their last wish, you better make sure you provide it," said Jim Sheehan of the office's Charities Bureau.[...]

Steve Shor told ABC News today that the attorney general's accusations have "little merit." 

"Our small organization helped many families over the past 20 years," Steve Shor said in a statement. "I launched NCLF after the death of my teenage son to leukemia. I personally took no salary for over eight years. I wanted to help as many families as I could who had children suffering from cancer." 

"We feel we are being used as an 'example' due to the telemarketing fundraising laws and fundraising market over which we have no control. Our fundraising contracts were all filed with the attorney general who has long known their terms. We expect to be vindicated in court when the full story is explained," Steve Shor said.

Rabbi Yaakov Deutsch, from Afula, sentenced to 9 years for sexually abusing 4 teenagers

Arutz 7

A Nazareth Court sentenced Rabbi Yaakov Deutsch from Afula to nine years in prison on Wednesday, after he was convicted on charges of sexual abuse against four teenagers - two boys and two girls - whom he taught. 

Deutsch was also sentenced with paying a 290,000 shekel ($75,895) fine. 

The full seriousness of Deutsch's actions were examined in the court hearing for the sentencing, and the verdict condemned Deutsch's acts and motives.

Regarding the testimony of one victim, "it was wrong to think that the accused has the power to 'cure' her, and he even made her believe that the relationship between him and her is an 'instruction from above,'" the verdict stated, noting that the rabbi was using religion as a front for the abuse. 

"These acts began when she was about 15-years-old - young and vulnerable - and caused her great confusion as to the morality of the conjugal visits with the accused in light of her haredi education," it continued. "Between the two there was an ongoing relationship [...] in flagrant violation of the trust of the complainant and the accused, and despite her young age." [...]

A Nazareth Court sentenced Rabbi Yaakov Deutsch from Afula to nine years in prison on Wednesday, after he was convicted on charges of sexual abuse against four teenagers - two boys and two girls - whom he taught. 

Deutsch was also sentenced with paying a 290,000 shekel ($75,895) fine. 

The full seriousness of Deutsch's actions were examined in the court hearing for the sentencing, and the verdict condemned Deutsch's acts and motives.

Regarding the testimony of one victim, "it was wrong to think that the accused has the power to 'cure' her, and he even made her believe that the relationship between him and her is an 'instruction from above,'" the verdict stated, noting that the rabbi was using religion as a front for the abuse. 

"These acts began when she was about 15-years-old - young and vulnerable - and caused her great confusion as to the morality of the conjugal visits with the accused in light of her haredi education," it continued. "Between the two there was an ongoing relationship in flagrant violation of the trust of the complainant and the accused, and despite her young age." [..]

The court also rejected the defense's arguments that the accused were exploiting his status; the court noted that his actions dealt a severe and incontrovertible blow to the dignity, liberty, and physical and mental well-being of the complainants.[...]

Rav Dovid Eidensohn: Telephone Conference #12 The Rights of Parents and Children in a Divorce - Wed night July 22 9:30 PM

Shiur Telephone Even Hoezer #12 – Rights of Parents and Children in  a Divorce

  - Call 605-562-3130 then enter code 411161#

1.       We know that there are discussions on the rights of a husband or wife in a GET divorce. Here we want to discuss the rights of a parent when the child seeks a divorce, and the right of the children when the parents seek a divorce.

2.       Let us begin by stating that the divorce of a child or a parent is a devastating thing. That is, when a person or couple want a divorce, this causes great pain to the parents of the couple and their children. Regardless of whether or not this pain has its own specific halacha, it is real. That is, a parent, even if we ignore the mitsvah of honoring a parent, has something to say about a divorcing child, simply because of the agony produced. [...]

Can a talmid chachom degrade himself to stop others from sinning? Understanding Rav Shalom Arush

Questions have been raised concern  Rav Shalom Arush's  announcement that he will no longer provide consultations with women because of the concern for the yetzer harah - as seen in recent rabbinic scandals. Some have claimed that he should not have a problem controlling his yetzer harah. Others have claimed this is an over reaction and there is no reason for such a change. I just came across an interesting explanation by Rav Yitzhok Zilberstein which seems to adddress these questions.

Is it permitted for a talmid chachom to degrade himself in order to benefit the masses?

Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein (Chashuki Chemed - Yoma 18b): Question: Is it permitted for a talmid chachom to scream "There is a fire in the house of Amram" as Rav Amram the Pious did (Kiddushin 81a) in order to teach the masses that they should be very careful with the prohibition of yichud or perhaps it is prohited to degrade himself in the eyes of the community? Answer: The Ben Yehoyada (Yoma 18b) writes concerning the gemora that Rav and Rav Nachman had a practice of publicly asking "who will be my wife for a day" when they arrived in a community, "G-d forbid that we should suspect gedolim of having uncontrollable lusts and therefore being unable to survive without a wife for a small number of days... Please pay attention to my explanation. There are times when you find communities that have a bad custom that the men do not get married until after they are 30 or 40 years old. ... There are in fact cities in Europe which have such a custom. This custom causes much problem for the ignorant masses who succumb to temptations. That is why the rabbis made these public anouncments about their desire to be married to a local woman – even if it were only for one day. This was done purely to cause aware of the issue in the hearts of the masses. The masses would conclude, "If rabbis who are devoted to Torah study and and night and kedusha are still concerned lust and don't want to be without a wife even for a few days – then surely this is true for young men who have very strong lusts." This approach of self-degradation succeeded in conveying the importance of marriage more than many rebukes. Thus we see that the rabbis accepted degradation and disgracing their honor in order to prevent others from sinning. From this we can conclude that it is in fact permitted for a talmid chachom to degrade himself in order to benefit the masses.

Schlesinger Twins: Rabbis protest Michael's spiteful mistreatment of Beth and Twins

Updated to include additional signatures

בס״ד

Re. Beth Alexander

We have followed the case of Beth Alexander for some time and have had the opportunity to hear from her about the dreadful and unnecessary pain that she has suffered following her divorce. In the initial stages of Beth’s separation, her husband was evicted by the police after allegations that he had been violent. The Austrian court only allowed him restricted and supervised access to his children.

Yet many of us have followed the Kafkaesque decisions made by subsequent courts which have granted full custody to Beth’s ex-husband with only limited visiting rights. Beth is naturally distraught over the lack of care being given to her children. They are looked after by paid help who speak little German or English.

Beth is also concerned for the health of her children, especially after dental procedures were performed without her knowledge to remove teeth from both of the boys. What is more perverse is that on top of the injustice in denying Beth’s children proper access to their mother, Beth has had to pay up to 50EUR for each 2-minute handover, failing which, she would have been unable to see her children. This is in addition to the child maintenance she must pay as mandated by the court.

To add insult to injury, Beth finds that the Austrian Jewish community and certain members of the Austrian rabbinate have largely shunned her. She has been told by individuals in the community to keep quiet or go back to England and forget about her children. While we recognise that the court’s decisions must be respected, we are profoundly disappointed that the Austrian Jewish community and leadership have not adequately supported a vulnerable and defenceless young woman, who has been thrust into this intolerable situation against her will.

We are also deeply concerned that Dr. Schlesinger has been given opportunities to make life easier for Beth and the children, and yet appears to have deliberately ignored them. This gives the impression that his children are merely pawns in a spiteful game to make life for Beth a living hell. We therefore request that Dr. Schlesinger takes the following steps to alleviate Beth’s situation for the sake of Sammy and Benji.

• To accept the offer of a simple and inexpensive handover of the children, coordinated by the Chief Rabbi of Austria or others within the community.

• To comply with the Court’s access orders in full.

• To stop cancelling access visits to Beth in defiance of the courts.

• To accept the generous offer of Rabbi Hofmeister to host Beth and the boys for one Shabbat meal a month with immediate effect.

We wish to send the strongest message possible to Dr. Schlesinger that his behaviour is a disgrace and our patience has run out.

Beth Alexander is a warm, kind-natured and generous person who deserves to play a full and active role in bringing up her children. We hope and pray that the natural maternal love that she has for them will ultimately break through the effects of this disgraceful injustice that she and her children have been forced to endure.

We therefore join the Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis and our other colleagues who are working to help address the best interests of Beth and her children, and call upon other rabbonim and communal leaders to join us in our endeavours.


Rabbi Danny Bergson, London
Rabbi Boruch Boudilovsky, London
Rabbi Alex Chapper, London
Rabbi Zvi Cohen, London
Rabbi Boruch Davis, London
Rabbi Elchonon Feldman, London
Rabbi Yisroel Fine, London
Rabbi Dr. Moshe Freedman, London
Rabbi Pinchas Hackenbroch, London
Rabbi Chaim Kanterovitz, London
Rabbi Dov Kaplan, London
Rabbi James Kennard, Melbourne, Australia
Rabbi Anthony Knopf, Cape Town, South Africa
Rabbi Marc Levene, London
Rabbi David Mason, London
Rabbi Alon Meltzer, Canberra, Australia
Rabbi Joel Portnoy, Manchester
Rabbi Yosef Richards, London
Rabbi Shaul Robinson, New York, USA
Rabbi Daniel Roselaar, London
Rabbi Meir Salasnik, London
Rabbi Arnold Saunders, Manchester
Rabbi Zvi Solomons, Reading
Rabbi Gary Wayland, London
Rabbi Nissan Wilson, London
Rabbi Mordechai Wollenberg, Liverpool

Head of religious women's Seminary allegedly posing as senior IDF officer allegedly dupes dozens of women into intimate relationships

Israel Hayom

A married man posing as a high-ranking military officer duped dozens of women into intimate relationships after meeting them online and spinning an intricate web of lies designed to garner sympathy, Israel Hayom has learned.

The man, who in reality is married with children and the head of a Jewish women's seminary, used a fake name and told women he was a 38-year-old single man from central Israel who was a major in the Paratroopers Brigade.

After one woman created a Facebook group outing the man, more than 100 other women joined, saying they too had been lied to and hurt by him. The first official police complaint is expected to be filed on Tuesday.[...]

At the seminary where he works, the man is in close contact with young women completing national service and with other young people.

According to B., "There's no question that he is a psychopath. He so calmly defrauded so many women over such a long period of time. He is evil incarnate. He would say over and over again, 'It is going to change soon, I will finish my reserve duty and this work, and we will be free to get out there and live out lives,' as if he hoped some woman would take him out of this hell, out of the elaborate trick.[...]

The principal of the seminary where the man works sent a statement to Israel Hayom saying: "There is no side to take and no response. Everything will be revealed with the police; a different picture will come forward. As of now, none of these women have come forward to me or complained."

A woman who willingly had intercourse with her spiritual advisor/rabbi/kabbalist - is she now prohibited to her husband?

Binyan Tzion Rav Ettlinger

In view of a number of instances where a married woman going to a rabbi is advised by the rabbi to have intercourse with him and he says it is permitted - is she prohibited to her husband?

This is not simply a case that the husband is told not to believe her and therefore he can stay married to her (Igros Moshe (E.H. III 16). Nor is it considered rape as it is if she were a child - since she was fully compliant. In short is there a heter for her to remain with her husband because her motivation was not to sin or to rebel against her husband - but rather because she thinks it is a mitzva?

Such a case was dealt with by the Binyan Tzion (154) and other rabbis about hundred and fifty years ago. The ruling of the Binyan Tzion that permitted her to remain with her husband has been cited in recent teshuvos dealing with adultery - Seridei Eish (3:124) and Tzitz Eliezer 5:22. However other poskim have disagreed with the Binyan Tzion - Sho'el umeshiv 3:48 and Yad Eleazar (109). The Yad Eleazar (13) deals with another case in which a woman didn't realize the man who came into the apartment and had sex with her was not her husband - but her brother -in-law. When she realized her mistake and protested he raped her and she became pregnant. In this case the Yad Eleazar permitted her to remain with her husband and declared that the child was not a mamzer. [See Infidelity and Intimacy in 19th century Vienna by Julie Lieber in NASHIM  a Journal of Jewish Women's Studies and Gender Issues 2011]

[this is my rough translation - please check the original Hebrew]

Binyan Tzion (#154) … One day when the husband was away on business a man arrived in the village from Poland with ragged clothing and he requested from the wife a place to sleep. While the wife was very modest all her life, her religious righteousness blinded her and out of a feeling pity she gave him a place to stay as well as food and drink. However the guest refused to eat any meat and he refused to drink anything other than water. He did other ascetic acts which seemed to indicate he was a very pious person such as physical afflictions which he did to himself everyday. He sat in his room all day alone with a sefer in his hand. In addition every night he would say tikun chatzos at midnight and mourn for the destruction of the Temple. He also refused to sleep in a bed but instead slept on the ground with a stone for a pillow. Everyday he would immerse himself twice daily in the cold waters of a nearby stream even though it was winter. However one Friday night after the meal was finished and the children and servants had left the table and gone to sleep – this fraud remained sitting at the table alone with the woman. After they talked a while she started to ask him who he was and where he had come from and where was he going? He replied that he was G-d’s messenger and his name was Eliyahu the Prophet and he was gathering his fellow Jews from the four corners of the Earth and that he only revealed this information to certain pious individuals. The woman in her foolishness totally believed him. She then went to sleep in her bedroom which adjoined the dining room. This disgusting person remained sitting in his place study a sefer until midnight. After midnight he got up and quietly tiptoed to her bed and woke her from her sleep. He told her that he had traveled from one end of the world to the other and he had not found anyone as righteous as she was who was deserving to be the mother of the Messiah. But the problem was that her husband was not fitting to be the father of the Messiah. He said therefore he had been sent from Heaven to have intercourse with her and at the appropriate time she would give birth to the Messiah who would redeem all the Jewish people.  He said he would give her sign that he was in fact Eliyahu. He said that the following Tuesday after he had left her, if she would open the trunk which stood in her bedroom she would find a treasure of gold coins.  But this would only happen if she didn't open the trunk before he had left. He spoke these things in such a convincing manner that he succeeded in seducing her and having intercourse with her on Friday Night, Saturday night. However on Sunday before dawn this disgusting person fled from there and no one knew where he went. This foolish woman decided it would be a good idea to write to her husband that he should return home quickly since G-d had given them a great treasure. Her husband listed to her and returned on Tuesday. But when the woman opened the trunk she did not find any treasure that the seducer had promised her. When she realized that she had been tricked she screamed and cried bitterly and told her husband all the disgusting things that had transpired through this wicked man. She explained to him that she hadn't don't this to rebel against him but rather she had done it for the sake of Heaven. She explained that the seducer was ugly and very disgusting and she hadn't done it for lust. However her husband was not placated with this explanation and went to the Rav and told him everything and asked what the halacha was regarding his wife. The Rav sent for her and cross examined her carefully and she told him all the details mentioned here.  The Rav ordered that they separate from each other until he had a chance to consult with other rabbis. [...]

Conclusion: As a consequence of this line or reasoning we are saying that when she deliberately had adulterous intercourse – for the sake of Heaven – it did not constitute rebelling against and betrayal of her husband. However it is not correct to disagree with the Maharik and Beis Shmuel and to permit that which they prohibit. Nevertheless I saw in Shevus Yaakov (2:117) that he was asked concerning a man who was walking with his wife and others in a forest when they were attacked by murderers and the only chance of saving their lives was if his wife had sexual relations with the bandits with her husbands consent. The question was since she had deliberately committed adultery to save their lives was she now permitted to her husband? The Shevus Yaakov answer is based on the Maharik who asked why is such an action different than what Esther did either as being forced originally or eventually doing it willingly since that was also a case where she committed adultery in order to save the Jewish people? … He states that if intercourse was not forced but was done for the sake of saving others – then she is prohibited to her husband but if the intercourse itself was forced then she is permitted to her husband. Now regarding our case the question is that when the seducer said to her that he was Eliyahu the Prophet and he was sent from Heaven to have intercourse with her and she believed this nonsense to such a complete degree that she contacted her husband so he could experience the wealth that had been promised by Eliyahu because she view as if she had already gotten it. Consequently because of her foolishness she viewed this as a Divine commandment to have intercourse with this man and there is no greater force than that. She clearly had no intent to rebel against her husband but her motivation was purely for the sake of Heaven. Therefore it should be viewed according to the Maharik and Achronim that she was totally forced to have intercourse and she is permitted to her husband in my humble opinion.  However my psak should not be relied upon unless there are two other poskim who agree with this and thus I join with them to permit this woman to her husband. In particular as we noted in the question she was always a righteous woman and they have children. This is my humble opinion.

Rav Shalom Arush - because of the Sheinberg scandal - will no longer meet with women

update Can a talmid chachom degrade himself to stop others from sin?

Kikar Shabbat (my rough translation from the Hebrew)

 The Rosh Yeshiva of Chut shel Chesed - one of the most important Breslov rabbis -  announced that he is discontinuing meeting with women who are seeking advice. He explained that this is because the yetzer harah of rabbis is greater than other people.

As a result of the serious allegations related to the case of Ezra Sheinberg that were made public this month in Tzfas, Rav Arush anounced that he will no longer meet with women as part of his regular meeting with the public. He told Kikar Shabbat that he stated that with the explosion of allegations of serious irregularities in Tzfas he has told his chassidim and students he has firmly decided that from now he will not meet with women. He told his students that the reason was "the yetzer harah of rabbis is greater than other people." Therefore it is prohibited for rabbis to meet with women  to provide them with advice...

He also stated that even if the husband comes together with his wife to seek advice he is not willing to meet with the wife. Consequently from now on - women who seek his advice can only get it through the means of a written note brought by the husband.

Beth's case taken up by new president of the board of deputies

The following appeared in the Jewish Telegraph Friday July 17, 2015 page 26

Arkush: I will be robust for Beth

JONATHAN Arkush has promised to “robustly”take-up the case of Beth Alexander with the leaders of the Austrian Jewish community.

Last week, we revealed how 18 rabbis from Britain had signed an open letter criticising their Austrian counterparts and the community there over the treatment of the Mancunian mother. Beth, formerly married to Dr Michael Schlesinger, of Vienna, lost custody of her twin sons, now aged six. She has access to them for only six overnight stays each month and has fought a bitter battle through the courts with her ex-husband.

Mr Arkush told the Jewish Telegraph: “It is a matter of deep concern. This is something I am personally committed to. “It is a painful case and also one which is deeply regrettable. I will do my best to move things along.”

He also said he, together with Board senior vice president Richard Verber, last week met with Martin Eichtinger, the Austrian ambassador to the UK. “I am also planning to meet Jewish leaders in Austria and be robust in dealing with the matter with them,” Mr Arkush added. [...]

Making divorce less icky - new programs and guidance

NY Times

For the last two years, Ms. Pettus, 52, has used her soaring glass-walled living room and backyard to help women mired in the weeds of divorce navigate that which is profoundly icky. She provides community, respite and, most important, resources by hosting monthly panels, seminars and workshops on topics like collaborative law, litigation and mediation, raising teenagers, financial planning, real estate, grief, dating and midlife sex (zinc, apparently, is very important here), led by experts.[...]

Ms. Pettus is not alone in her efforts. While New York has trailed the rest of the country in terms of divorce law — the no-fault divorce did not land here until 2010 — grass-roots support systems surrounding the process have been growing, according to Lauren Behrman, a psychotherapist who specializes in divorce, following the lead of groups in states like California, Oregon and Minnesota, the birthplace of collaborative law. (Collaborative law starts with a commitment to settlement, not court.)

“The biggest challenge is to let people know they have options,” said Dr. Behrman. “That divorce doesn’t have to be this scorched-earth horrible litigation process. But the key is to get to the right professional first. If you walk into the office of a litigator, things are going to go a certain way. If you walk into a mental health professional’s office, it might go another way.”

While divorce rates over all have declined since their peak in the 1980s, the rate for those older than 50 has doubled in the last quarter-century (those over 50 account for half the married population). Nearly two thirds of these so-called gray divorces are initiated by women, an AARP study shows.

It is this confluence that underpins the female-centric nature of divorce support services and groups like Untied. That, and an anecdotal sense that women in crisis may seek community more often than men.

Divorce coaches, another burgeoning specialty, offer one-on-one services, for example, for fees that can hover around $100 an hour and may include a session to plan what to say to one’s lawyer, to streamline the process and thus minimize legal fees.

SAS for Women is a three-year-old divorce coaching business started by two women who had gone through very different divorces but faced a huge learning gap, said Liza Caldwell, one of SAS’s principals.[...]

Stephanie Coontz is co-chair and director of education at the Council on Contemporary Families and an expert on coupling and uncoupling. Groups like Ms. Pettus’s, she said, are “microcosms of a new understanding that we have to develop norms for divorce rather than take sides.”

“As divorce has become more common,” she continued, “people have begun to stop seeing it as a personal loss or betrayal. It’s a process that can go badly or go well, so in many different ways there are people trying to make divorce less disastrous.”[...]

Medical child abuse panic- parents charged for following one doctor against the view of another

NY Times

 FEW things are tougher for a parent than dealing with a child’s serious medical condition, particularly if it is complicated and hard to diagnose. The parent has to make hard choices about treatment, navigating conflicting advice from doctors or even rejecting one doctor’s opinion and seeking another.

Recently, the situation of these parents has gotten even harder. Some doctors and hospitals have begun to level a radical new charge — “medical child abuse” — against parents who, they say, get unnecessary or excessive treatment for their kids. That this care is usually ordered by other doctors hasn’t protected parents from these loaded accusations.

Although most of these cases have nothing to do with real child abuse, credulous child welfare officials have too often supported the doctors, threatened parents with loss of custody, and even removed kids from their homes — simply because the parents disagreed with the doctor’s plan of care.

Perhaps the most notorious such case is that of Justina Pelletier, a teenager who was being treated for mitochondrial disease, or “mito,” a rare metabolic disorder that interferes with energy production. On the advice of a metabolic geneticist at Tufts Medical Center who was treating her, she was admitted in 2013 to Boston Children’s Hospital, so that she could see her longtime gastroenterologist, who had recently moved there. Without consulting the girl’s doctor at Tufts, Boston Children’s concluded that the girl’s problem was not mito, but largely psychiatric, according to The Boston Globe.

When her parents disagreed and sought to transfer her back to Tufts, Boston Children’s called child protection, asserting that the parents were harmfully interfering in her care. Although the Tufts geneticist supported the mito diagnosis, a juvenile court judge deferred to Boston Children’s assessment, and Justina’s parents lost custody. After more than 16 months in state custody, much of it spent in a locked psychiatric ward, Justina was finally returned to her parents — still in a wheelchair, still sick.[...]

As I’ve researched medical child abuse over the past year, several advocacy and support groups for patients with rare diseases told me they had seen an alarming rise in medical child abuse charges: MitoAction (which supports patients with mito); the American Partnership for Eosinophilic Disorders (disorders relating to white blood cells); the Ehlers-Danlos National Foundation (a rare disorder of the connective tissues); and Dysautonomia International (autonomic nervous system disorders). Through these groups, I’ve surveyed 95 parents who have been accused, in 30 states.

Dr. Frances D. Kendall, the geneticist in Atlanta who diagnosed my daughter’s mitochondrial disease, told me that she has seen a rising number of cases in which the parents of children with mito had been wrongly charged. Dr. Mark S. Korson, the geneticist who treated Justina Pelletier at Tufts, also said that such charges have snowballed in recent years.[...]

In its zealotry, the medical child abuse movement resembles two other panics from the recent past: the sex-abuse panic of the 1980s and 1990s and, more recently, the panic over shaken-baby syndrome. In both panics, experts saw foul play where none existed, government officials took their views at face value, and people were wrongly convicted and imprisoned, their lives ruined. Medical child abuse is causing similar harm.[...]

Government should not get involved when doctors disagree about a diagnosis or course of treatment, the doctors have full knowledge of the child’s medical record, and a parent chooses one doctor’s opinion over another’s. It should intervene only when there is evidence that a parent has intentionally provided significant misinformation to physicians, fabricated elements of the medical history or induced medical symptoms. Parents should always be allowed to seek second (and third) opinions.[...]