Rethinking Positive Thinking: It can hinder more than it helps by zapping people's motivation to work toward their goals.

The following is a much needed correction to the modern obsession with positive thinking, for those who live their lives by the "Secret" or Oprah Winfrey, or simply can't get enough inspirational drashos by famous rabbis and rebbetzins. The antidote is "mental contrasting" which is described by psychology Prof. Gabriele Oettigen,  It is adding an awareness of reality. Positive thinking - without reality - tends to be satisfying to the degree it saps motivation to actually bring about change. This is a significant issue in the frum community - where bitachon is often the term use for positive thinking without concern for reality. Interestingly enough - the Ramban and others state that bitrachon can be a hindrance and that people like Yaakov Avinu did not use it. It is basicallly expecting to get something you don't deserve - simply because you trust G-d to give it to you.

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

The Atlantic  It’s hard to pinpoint exactly when positive thinking became the star of the self-help industry. The idea of optimism is older than America itself (some accounts date it back to ancient Greece), and positive psychology has been validating its benefits since long before Oprah and Deepak Chopra.

Today, the power of optimism is trumpeted from the shelves of bookstores, the walls of yoga studios, and the podiums of leadership conferences. Countless studies in recent years have charted the benefits of optimism, including reduced risk of heart disease and stroke, better immunity, and improved job performance.

But if positive thinking is such a game-changer, why do people often have such a hard time quitting smoking, losing weight, finding a new job, or maintaining a regular gym routine? If positive thoughts somehow birth great outcomes, why do we often struggle to reach personal and professional goals? While being upbeat and optimistic clearly isn’t the worst thing we can do for ourselves, it seems like it’s not exactly spurring behavior change, either.

Dr. Gabriele Oettigen, a New York University psychology professor and researcher, has been studying the effects and realities of positive thinking for over 20 years. In her new book, Rethinking Positive Thinking, she points out that while optimism is a critical component of conceiving goals, it can also be crippling when it comes to actually working toward them. In fact, a cheery disposition and good attitude can zap the motivation needed to mobilize and strategize, leaving us with lofty ideas that never reach fruition. In other words, dreaming isn’t doing.

I spoke with Oettigen about what could be more a practical and effective approach: a concept she has christened “mental contrasting.” In her book, she argues that while optimism alone isn’t enough, positive thinking coupled with an understanding of the obstacles that stand in our way is the key to achieving significant behavior change.

Magdalena Puniewska: Your book centers on the idea that in order to successfully achieve our goals, we need to add a dash of realism to our positivity. Could you explain how that works?

Gabriele Oettigen: We all have goals, big and small, personal and professional. We may fantasize about what it would be like to achieve them—for example, how nice it would be to have that corner office or to be 10 pounds lighter. But after this bout of dreaming, what we should also do is perform a procedure called mental contrasting—that is, examine the barriers that stand in the way of us actually attaining that goal. Visualizing the desired future and then imagining the obstacles can actually help us be more successful than positive thinking alone. [,,,]

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

NY Times    Dare to Dream of Falling Short 

Ever hear the joke about the guy who dreams of winning the lottery? After years of desperate fantasizing, he cries out for God’s help. Down from heaven comes God’s advice: “Would you buy a ticket already?!”

Clearly, this starry-eyed dreamer is, like so many of us, a believer in old-fashioned positive thinking: Find your dream, wish for it, and success will be yours.

Not quite, according to Gabriele Oettingen, a psychology professor at New York University and the University of Hamburg, who uses this joke to illustrate the limitations of the power of positive thinking. In her smart, lucid book, “Rethinking Positive Thinking: Inside the New Science of Motivation,” Dr. Oettingen critically re-examines positive thinking and give readers a more nuanced — and useful — understanding of motivation based on solid empirical evidence.

Conventional wisdom has it that dreams are supposed to excite us and inspire us to act. Putting this to the test, Dr. Oettingen recruits a group of undergraduate college students and randomly assigns them to two groups. She instructs the first group to fantasize that the coming week will be a knockout: good grades, great parties and the like; students in the second group are asked to record all their thoughts and daydreams about the coming week, good and bad.

Strikingly, the students who were told to think positively felt far less energized and accomplished than those who were instructed to have a neutral fantasy. Blind optimism, it turns out, does not motivate people; instead, as Dr. Oettingen shows in a series of clever experiments, it creates a sense of relaxation complacency. It is as if in dreaming or fantasizing about something we want, our minds are tricked into believing we have attained the desired goal. [...]

Bill Cosby Scandal Update: 35 Accusers Featured On New York Magazine Cover

International Business Times

Thirty-five women who have accused Bill Cosby of drugging and raping them decades ago featured together on the cover of New York Magazine’s latest issue. Over 40 women have come forward since 2005 claiming that the comedian sexually assaulted them, but no charges have so far been filed against him.

Prof Marc Shapiro: Distorting & concealing halacha - how mainstream is it?

I want to simply note that I also was disappointed with the last chapter of an over all excellent book which is a very valuable contribution to understanding Orthodox Judaism. I don't think Prof Shapiro made a serious effort to discuss the meaning of emes in traditional sources.

The Seforim Blog    Critique by Prof Frimer and Response by Prof Shapiro of his new book about censorship

Truth be Told[by Aryeh A. Frimer*1] Comments on Changing the Immutable: How Orthodox Judaism Rewrites its History by Marc B. Shapiro

[...] But what I found particularly troubling with Changing the Immutable was the last chapter, which deals with lying in pesak. After going through the many examples Shapiro cites, the reader is left with one clear impression. One sometimes needs to be careful about trusting a Posek, since he may well be misrepresenting something in his ruling. It could be the source and authority of the prohibition. For example, is the prohibition based on a biblical commandment (positive or negative), rabbinic edict, custom or mere public policy (slippery slope) considerations? Alternatively, the expressed reason may not be the real grounds for the prohibition. In addition, the application may be much broader than halakhically permitted. To my mind these are shocking revelations: these are not sins of omission but commission; the perpetrators are scholars and religious leaders; and these deviations constitute intellectual dishonesty at its worst.[...]

It is with these jarring observations that the book comes to an abrupt end, without any further comment or soul-searching. This is despite the fact that on page 239ff, Shapiro brings one citation from Hazal after another about the centrality of truth, and the seriousness of the sin of lying. After all, the Torah itself commands us: "mi-Devar sheker tirhak" – "From untruthfulness, distance thyself” (Exodus 23:7). If what the author writes in the last chapter is true, then Hazal's eloquent statements about the importance of honesty have become nothing but a mockery. It raises serious moral questions with insufficient and unsatisfying answers. How are we now supposed to educate our children and talmidim as to the cardinal nature of truth and truthfulness?! How are we to live with such a clash between theory and practice? [...]

Having lived through the crises and confrontations of women's prayer groups, women on religious councils, women in communal leadership roles and women's aliyyot – I can testify that there is great need for both in-depth knowledge and truthfulness. The "hillul Hashem and loss of trust" argument is not just hype - but painfully all too accurate! Many of the rabbis in the 1970s lost control of the religious leadership of their communities because they were unprepared or unwilling to deal with the challenges honestly and head on. Many rabbis simply tried to stonewall the situation, while others were not forthright about the real reason for forbidding such practices. As previously noted, the Rabbis may well have been correct that many of the feminist practices introduced were halakhically unsound or "bad for the Jews" on a variety of public policy grounds.[21] But instead of saying so clearly (as Rav Joseph B. Soloveitchik zt"l had urged and himself practiced), some rabbis waffled, while others prevaricated. But the halakhic truth quickly became known – a consequence of the "information age." And as a result, many balebatim lost trust in the religious leadership as a whole. For them the conclusion was simply: "Everything boils down to politics."

It is, therefore, critically important to reiterate that the cases cited by our author, exemplify neither pesak in general, nor the consensus view of the posekim. It is forbidden to misrepresent in halakhic rulings as a matter of law and policy. In essence, then, Prof Shapiro's scholarly and well-documented book presents the reader with a most fascinating review of an approach within halakhic decision making, which has been rejected by mainstream pesak. Indeed, such cases need to be actively addressed if they are to be uprooted.


Response by Marc B. Shapiro

I understand why Professor Frimer is troubled by what I wrote, and to a large extent my conclusions diverge from his own. All I would say is that the matter is complex, and rather than attempt to simplify matters, as I feel Frimer has done, we must attempt to understand how the same Sages who spoke about the importance of truth could at times countenance departure from it. This is a challenge that requires sensitivity and nuance, and appreciation of changing times and values. When Frimer sees a text that permits false attribution, he sees prevarication and hypocrisy. But a historically attuned outlook would seek to understand rather than condemn. Ironically, it is Frimer who is judging the Sages and decisors, because if their ideas do not conform to his understanding then these ideas are regarded by him as problematic.[...]

The point of the chapter, however, was not to advocate for one position or the other, but to focus on the alternative tradition, the existence of which is more or less suppressed today. I was explicit that my aim was to show how far some were willing to go in sanctioning deviations from the truth, and I indicate that there are views in opposition to these. However, my intent was to study the views of those with a “liberal” perspective on the importance of truth. It is this tradition that I wished to explore, and to rescue it, as it were, from the well-intentioned apologetics. I never state that this is the only authentic position. On the contrary, one can find the opposite perspective presented in numerous articles. This is why I thought it was important to present alternative views, from the Talmud until the present, views which I think show that there is a rabbinic conception of the Noble Lie.[..]

I agree with Frimer that none of the great poskim supported lying in pesak as a normative option on a regular basis. Yet as I have already indicated, I believe that there is a tradition that allows for not being frank at certain times, when it is thought that other values are at stake. In the book I state that we should understand this position in a sympathetic fashion even if it is at odds with how today we generally approach matters.[...]

I have been called some different things in my life, but this is the first time I have been referred to as one of “Orthodoxy’s critics”.

Let me also add that Changing the Immutable has sold very well in the haredi world, and this is not surprising since it is not an anti-haredi book at all.

Kal Holczler and Voices of Dignity. Surviving Child Abuse In The Jewish World

Choose Life: An Aish HaTorah Documentary about Leah Kaufman

Courtesy of Aish.com

Leah Kaufman is the only survivor of her family of nine. Born in Hertsa, then Moldova, Leah’s childhood was ripped away from her by the evil Nazi regime. Forced out of their home, surviving a shooting squad, death marches and ghettos Leah’s life is one of miracles.

This Legacy Live production is a unique window into the life of a child Holocaust survivor who implores everyone to do as her mother asked, “Live, remember and tell the world,” to embrace their heritage and show others “the beauty of being a Jew”. Leah’s care and love for her family and all others, together with her desire to educate others is an inspiration to all who meet her. Leah’s unwavering faith and life messages empowers people again and again, with her first hand testimony.

יומן עם אילה חסון - המטפל ה"מומחה" שניצל ופגע בצעירות חרדיות ב"עזר מציון"

Rotter

A Channel 1 documentary describing alleged abuse against charedi girls by a therapist at Ezer MiTzion. First video is a 5 minuite preview of the longer original newcast

Ritual Sexual Abuse: The Anatomy of a Panic (Part 1)

This 2 part BBC program describes the history of belief in ritual or satanic child abuse and suggest various reasons why belief in the existence of these rings - is more important than finding evidence for them. In particular why this belief ends up causing not only panic and destruction to the community, instituions such as schools and places of worship and to the family structure - but it provides a harmful excuse for not believing children when real abuse happens.

Click this link to hear the program BBC

Courtroom applauds as New Jersey man admits fatally stabbing Boy Scout leader he says molested him

CBS NY

Applause erupted in a New Jersey courtroom Wednesday, after emotional remarks from a man who pleaded guilty to stabbing and killing the man he says molested him as a child.

As CBS2’s Dave Carlin reported, Clark Fredericks, 49, admitted to the stabbing that killed Dennis Pegg, who was his Boy Scout leader and a family friend decades ago.

The case has many asking whether Fredericks was right or wrong.

“From the time I was 8 years old until I was 12 years old, I was sexually assaulted and raped by Dennis Pegg,” Fredericks said in the Sussex County courtroom.

The confessed killer delivered a detailed, gut-wrenching account of what he said happened to him as a child, and what he did about it more than three decades later.[...]

Friends in the courtroom sobbed as Fredericks talked about Pegg torturing and killing animals, threatening do the same to him if he “told anyone about our secret.” He said for many years, he would deny it whenever his mother and father asked if Pegg had hurt him even though they suspected it.

But Fredericks said because Pegg was a “respected law enforcement officer,” an “expert with guns,” and a leader in the Boy Scouts, he was “untouchable.”

“No one would believe my word over his,” he said. [...]

A pamphlet claims there is a conspiracy to sexually abuse Jewish children in Jerusalem

This pamphlet organizes the hysterical claims that have many parents afraid to let their children out of their sight. As I have noted before - after two years of panic and investigations - there is no solid evidence for the reality of this conspiracy. There is no doubt child abuse exits in Jerusalem - as there is all over the world. But this goes way beyond that and is claiming a massive conspiracy. As I have noted before these claims have been around for a long time - especially in America - but after many such allegations - not one case has been confirmed. Of importance to note - often you can find claims that child abuse rings are run by Jews. As noted in previous posts - Rav Yitzchok Berkowitz of the Sanhedria Murchevet neighborhood has been a prime pusher of such claims in the past. The fact that the police don't believe there is evidence for these claims - is viewed as proof of the conspiracy and that the police are involved. There are also many mental health professionals who don't believe these claims.

  Claims of sexual abuse rings in Jerusalem 

Is religion doing enough to root out abuse?

BBC

From when Karen Morgan was 12, until she was well into her teens, she was sexually abused by her uncle - a ministerial servant with the Jehovah's Witnesses. 

He would go upstairs, on the premise that he was saying a prayer with his niece, then sexually abuse her. 

Now in her 30s, Karen wasn't understood when she first told her parents what her uncle, Mark Sewell, was doing. 

Sewell was also the son of a trusted older member of the local Jehovah's Witnesses congregation, known as an elder.

Christian churches, as well as other religions, have faced claims of child abuse. 

But what is striking about the Jehovah's Witnesses is their explicit policy of dealing with abuse in-house.

Because of their practice of following the Bible literally, they insist there must be two witnesses to a crime, often not the case in child abuse cases. 

However, in Karen's case a second witness did come forward: Wendy, a family friend and fellow member of the Barry congregation in south Wales. She had been raped by the same man. 

When she reported the crime to elders, Wendy was made to describe it in minute detail to a group of older men. 

Later, she had to give her account again in the same room as Sewell. 

Afterwards, the elders told her that as it was only her account against that of Sewell, nothing more could be done. 

This bringing together of the accused and the accuser in a "judicial committee" is a common feature of Jehovah's Witnesses' justice. 

Karen, still a teenager at the time, was put through the process.

The elders also ruled that their separate accusations didn't constitute the required two witnesses.

Despite a pattern of predatory sexual behaviour, it took more than two decades to bring Wendy and Karen's abuser to justice. 

He is now serving a 14-year prison sentence.

His punishment from the Jehovah's Witnesses? There wasn't one. [...]

Jehovah's Witnesses are not the only religious organisation to try to deal with allegations of sexual abuse in-house.

For many decades, that was the preferred method of the Roman Catholic Church, which has since reformed its child safeguarding policies following numerous court cases in the US and Europe against priests for the sexual abuse of children. 

Other churches have also tightened up their child safeguarding policies, with the Methodist Church conducting its own recent inquiry into abuse allegations dating back to 1950. 

That inquiry has led to calls for the Church of England to hold a fresh internal inquiry of its own, separately from the overarching national public inquiry that has just begun, and from the investigation it published in 2010, which critics termed inadequate. 

However, it is the more closed religious communities and new religious movements where it remains hardest for the victims of such abuse to speak out and gain access to secular justice, although awareness of the issue is growing. 

Only this month, an ultra-Orthodox Jewish scholar from Manchester - who fled to Israel after he was exposed as a paedophile - was jailed for 13 years. 

Todros Grynhaus was deported by the Israeli authorities to face justice in the UK, with his conviction for sex offences against girls leading to a change in attitudes in the Haredi Jewish community. 

The case prompted the UK's Chief Rabbi, Ephraim Mirvis, to urge members to report child sex abuse.

The court had heard that both women who testified against Grynhaus in the case had been "ostracised" by their community as a result of speaking out about their ordeal. [...]

Aish HaTorah vs Yaakov Fetman: Questioning the accuracy of the Lipnitsky Accountant Report

 An attorney with knowledge of this case - who supports Fetman - sent the following.

Includes the following documents:

1. Lipnitsky Forensic Accountant Report

  Lipnitsky Forensic Report 

2. Transcript of Lipnitsky's deposition - in which he states hundreds of times "I Don't remember", "I took no notes", There was no report"...

  Full Lipnitsky Deposition 

Aish and their attorney fought in court not to divulge the purported forensic report that Rabbi Cohen stated he saw and relied on that report for his award of $20,000,000

3. A decision from Justice Demarest dated April 25 2015 compelling Aish to show Fetman that forensic report. The Judge noticed that the report was dated December 17th 2013,  well after the last session with Rabbi Cohen and was incredulous to hear that Fetman never received this report prior to Rabbi Cohen issuing his decision and award on December 17th. Lipnitsky also admitted discussing this case with Rabbi Cohen the evening before he issued the report, against all common practice that no discussions shall take place Ex Parte.

  Decision of Judge Demarest to give Lipnitsky Report 

There are major errors and mistakes in the purported report - some of which are stated below:

Lipnitsky report

Exhibit 1 summarizes his findings - between the years 2006 - 2013

1. Unauthorized compensation - $174,202

2. Funds deposited into Unauthorized bank accounts: $ 1,697,523

3. Credit Card charges Personal - $ 462,787

4. Other $16,700

Total: $2,351,211 (This is the figure that they made to match  R. Cohen's reference when he states that the report claims that $2.4 million stolen from Aish. Also note that the report is dated December 17, when the psak itself was already faxed over December the 16th - based on R' Cohen fax date stamp)

Issues with the report:

2006-2013

1. Unauthorized compensation states that two schools were paid as a part of Allowable Compensation

Masores BY - report claim $ 161,942 however - as can be learned from the school's report (attached)

$131,473 was paid (difference of $30,469)

Tiferes Yisroel - Lipnitsky report claims $ 94,242 however as can be seen from the school's report (attached) only $ 58,403 was paid (difference of $ 35,839)

Additionally, Health insurance premiums, totaling $ 95,733 were NOT a part of the compensation but an added benefit.

Fetman's compensation 2006-2011 did NOT stay the same but was increased annually. 2012 - 2013 was $135,000 and not $125,000 as it shows on the report

Therefore - there is no basis to the claim of unauthorized compensation.

2. Lipnitsky's report refers to a total of seven bank accounts as "Unauthorized bank accounts"

Project Inspire (Bank of America X4050) total deposited $1,200,052

Tomchei Torah (Bank of American X4322) total deposited $ 262,923

Jewish Speakers Group (Bank of America X8362) total deposited $ 64,581

Ahavas Israel (Bank of America X4513) Total deposited $ 4,975

Three other account are referenced -

Aish International - depositing funds totaling $ 139,967 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)

Aish Missouri - depositing funds totaling $ 15,025 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)

and Aish Center - depositing funds totaling $10,000 into Merkaz account (Bank of America X5468)

the last three entities (Aish International, aish MO and Aish Center) are separate and distinct 501c3 organizations, with their own board, management teams and accounting departments. These entities are NOT under Fetman's control and never were. Its misleading and a complete falsehood to report these transactions as if they had anything to do with Aish NY. Certainly, Mr. Lipnitsky never even attempted to contact them as he stated in his deposition.

Project Inspire and Tomchei Torah are their own entities - Project Inspire was ALWAYS under Aish International (certificate of Incorporation attached) had its own staff, address, board of directors and fundraising and accounting systems. Lipnitsky's letter refers to email dialog between Greenman and Yossi Friedman, the director of Project Inspire, requesting that Inspire pay more money towards Fetman's compensation - clearly, Inspire is NOT under or a part of Aish NY.

Greenman claims that these accounts were 'unauthorized' yet clearly he knows and agrees to have Project Inspire use accounting services provided by Fetman. Greenman's claims that the Project Inspire bank account was unauthorized - is unbelievable - how else can checks made out to Project Inspire be able to be deposited ?

THE MOST EGREGIOUS OMISSION IS THAT IN THE LETTER LIPNISKY ACKNOWLEDGES CONFIRMING THAT APPROXIMATELY $450,000 WAS DEPOSITED BACK IN AISH ACCOUNT FROM MERKAZ, HOWEVER THE REPORT FAILS TO DEDUCT THAT AMOUNT FROM THE $2.35 MILLION REPORTED.

3. Credit Cards transactions reported to Lipnitsky by Aish as Personal - a total of $ 462,787

The report claims that EVERY charge at Staples was personal - approx. $200K over the 8 years! Likewise, charges from T-Mobile, Mountain Fruit, Home Depot, Lowes, Costco local coffee shops etc. are all marked as personal. Fetman NEVER had an account with T-Mobile only with Sprint and those transactions were authorized by others as legitimate aish expenses and not a part of Fetman's compensation.

Specific business transactions, such as over 10,000 dollars copier lease expenses charged by De Lage Landen, were marked as personal expenses. See lease attached.

Simcha Kosher Caterers, which was an Aish caterer for an event in Austen Texas, were marked personal as well.

Fetman was personally in charge of all purchases, and Aish staff constantly used Fetman's credit cards to have with them while on Aish run trips and student meetings. Many times staff meetings at local restaurants and eateries were charged to Fetman's credit card by staff.

As much of the documentation is not available to us, we can not comment on the amex transactions. One credit card - Aish Plum card - which Lipnitsky's report claims to have $147,919 personal charges 2010 thru 2013 was analyzed and concluded to have a total charges of $585,400. When deducting returns and refunds of $16,755 and legitimate Aish NY business transactions of $558,827, only $9817 of personal charges over the 4 year period exist.

4. Other Fetman Expenses:

$6700 over 2006 - 2013 Insurance payments to William Penn were authorized and not a part of Fetman's compensation.

Conclusion:

Lipnitsky's report which spans 8 years, and reports finding $2.35 million is a gross and malignant painting of the actual information. Even according to his own findings, its actually $1,900,000 (2.35 mil less than the $450K found returned to Aish). Even if we take 1.9 mil over 8 years and project to 17 years the total would be approximately $4 million - no where near $20 million.  However - as stated, the 'unauthorized accounts' were fully authorized and fully scrutinized by Project Inspire and Greenman, so the 1.9 mil is no where near that amount.

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.