Three UVA Grads Sue Rolling Stone Over Retracted Rape Article

NBC News  Three members of a University of Virginia fraternity caught up in a firestorm of criticism over a since-retracted Rolling Stone article alleging a sexual assault have filed a lawsuit against the publication and its author.

The three UVA graduates say in the complaint filed in federal court Wednesday that they were humiliated and mocked after they were presumed to be participants in an alleged sexual assault that was the centerpiece of the story.

They were not identified by the since-discredited article, but information in the story led to them being identified online as participants in the alleged attack, the lawsuit claims.

The three men suffered "vicious and hurtful attacks" in the aftermath of the article, the lawsuit says. Online, "plaintiffs' names will forever be associated with the alleged gang rape," the lawsuit claims.

They are suing Rolling Stone, author Sabrina Rubin Erdely, and the company that publishes Rolling Stone, Wenner Media. A dollar amount is not specified in the court documents, other than to say the suit seeks more than $75,000. [...]

The Rolling Stone article published in November detailed an alleged brutal gang rape of a UVA student named "Jackie" at a fraternity house.

Questions were raised about the validity of the account, and Rolling Stone retracted the article entirely by April. The retraction was made after an independent report found that the magazine violated "basic, even routine journalistic practice."

Time for change and hope - Relating to OTD children

Guest Post   By Yaakov Y. Freedman

There isn’t anyone I know who would argue that we don’t live in challenging and troubling times in the Jewish community.

Hardly a day goes by that we don’t hear or read about child abuse, nasty divorce cases, money scandals, and other horrible stories which bring Chilul Hashem amongst us Jews and the goyim. Connected or not, it has brought on what seems to be an escalating number of young people from the Orthodox community who bitterly leave the fold and lose all hope and desire for a religious life. It then further contributes to terrible consequences whereby persons of both genders take the next step of leaving the world. This is both so tragic and sad that it cries out loud for help from all of us.

You may ask, what can the simple bystander do? To start with, we must be informed about what’s happening around us despite the heimishe papers trying to keep a tight lid on anything that casts a negative light on our communities. Hiding one’s head like an ostrich in the sand won’t make these reported or unreported problems vanish.

Second, we must be honest with ourselves and be “don lekav zchus” people who go off the derech or behave different from what we believe in. We must be willing to try to be “mekarev” people who seem lost or troubled.

On the positive side, I’m amazed how every day new kiruv organizations pop up, small and large, who bring a professional approach to the masses that cannot bring themselves to even identify with Yiddishkeit in the simplest ways. There are B”H talented individuals in Israel and in America who have studied effective methods with which to deal with troubled or unaffilated Jews to try to get them on solid footing and bring them a meaningful religious life.

It is comforting to see good results coming from dedicated persons who tirelessly and selfishlessly devote energy and time to help others in need. But, it seems that it’s not enough to rely on others alone. We must begin by changing our set ways and think outside the box for the good of our brothers and sisters.

Which brings me to a letter that was brought to my attention and which was publicized online. It was sent by a chasidishe father to his daughter who went off the derech. Did he do the right thing? Perhaps so. I can’t help but think we could be nearing the time when Eliyahu Hanavi ushers in a new era of “V’heishiv Lev Avos Al Bonim V’Lev Bonim Al Avoisom”.

Here’s the letter from a chassidic dad to his adult OTD daughter.

My dearest Suri,

As I fasted today, I sat and reflected on what our fast is all about. Why was our beautiful home in Yerushalayim destroyed? Why did the presence of Hashem leave us? What did we do to drive ourselves into this long bitter golus?

I always knew the answer, but I don't think I understood it as well as I do right now. It was destroyed because we were judgmental of those who did not ACT the way we wanted them to act.

We were embarrassed of those who did not DRESS the way that we wanted them to dress. We looked down at those that did not TALK the way we wanted them to talk. And our misplaced ego caused us to think that we are better then they are. This is what caused us to destroy ourselves completely. Without having a ayin tovah, a favorable and understanding eye on those around us, we are not deserving of having the divine presence of Hashem live among us. We threw ourselves out with our self-righteous mindset.

Which group of us caused the destruction? The ones "on the derech" or the ones "off the derech"?

On this I sit and cry... my eyes fill with tears... the epiphany just hit me like a ton of bricks: It was not the ones wearing the jeans (as an example) that caused the destruction, rather, it was the ones not wearing jeans who then looked down upon those who wore the jeans! WE are the ones who destroyed the beis Hamikdosh and we have not yet corrected our sin! In fact, with Torah and mitzvos being so strong... we have perhaps even strengthened our sin... we have taken it to a higher level.

I look at myself... am I not part of the group who uses our beautiful religion to look down at others? And if so, am I not the one responsible for our current exile? What good is my fasting and sitting on a floor if I cannot face the truth that "I" am currently responsible for this tragedy?!

I now fully realize that it is not you and your friends who are preventing Moshiach from coming... it is me and my friends!

I wrote my own kinniss: Woe is to me for I have repeated and repeated the original sin that caused the churban! Woe is to me for I have stabbed my own flesh and blood! Woe is to me for I took the holy Torah that is supposed to be sweet and peaceful "dirachehuh darchei NOAM vichal nesivosehuh SHALOM" and I used it to form a dagger which I then used to stab you - and others - over and over again!!

And so after a long day of fasting and contemplation, I look back at the way that I treated you and for this I now sit and cry. My dear sweet beloved Suri !! How can I ever take back the pain that I caused you? How can I ever repay you for the smiles and hugs that you so deserved... but didn't get from me because I was too busy justifying to myself why it is OK for me to look down at you… to judge you harshly… and to actively destroy the Bais Hamikdosh? How can I give you back the lost years?

My dear Suri, a long long long time ago, I looked into the future and dreamed about the day that you would grow up, mature, learn right from wrong, wake up from your selfishness and finally come ask me for forgiveness… but after alot of inner searching... "I" grew up, and "I" matured, and "I" learned right from wrong, and now "I" finally finally woke up from MY selfish, haughty, egotistical, judgmental attitude! And now on this painful day I turn to you and I ask you – no, I BEG you - for forgiveness!!

I accept upon myself to shower you with love and affection, with hugs and kisses, and to do everything in my power to always be there for you through thick and thin! I pledge to work so so hard to make up for all of the pain that I caused you. I pledge to never look down at you, your friends, or on ANY JEW ever again. I am DONE with the negative attitude! I am DONE with being the judge and jury to another Yid! I am DONE with thinking that I am BETTER than ANY other Jew in Klal Yisrael. I am DONE being a part of the problem... and I pledge that as of right this moment... I will become a part of the SOLUTION!!

My Suri, please open your heart to me... please open your arms to me... hug me, hold my hand and let us build the beis Hamikdosh together…

What do you say?

Your loving Totty

Posted on Facebook – July 26, 2015

By Sarah Miller Gips

Baltimore, Maryland

My father sent me this letter today... I just wanted to share it, I wish more people would do things like this. I decided to post this publicly after I shared it with some people who really needed to see this and it was well received...

Rav Dovid Eidensohn: "Modern Orthodoxy" - Wed night July 29 9:30 telephone conference Shiur #13

call 605-562-3130  enter code 411161#

Jewry in general is filled with failure. “Most people sin with stealing.” “All Jews sin with Loshon Hora.” “Three sins everyone does every day: sinful thoughts, praying and being sure of being answered, and loshon hora.” (Bovo Basro 164b-5a) Our topic, however, is failure that becomes enshrined officially, when people call themselves not Orthodox but something else, Modern Orthodox or like the new apikorsim mamosh who call themselves Open Orthodox even though their leaders say clearly that they don’t believe in the Torah. Yes, we maintain a difference between a Jew who fails and a Jew who hangs up a sign and says “I don’t keep this or that.”

We are going to speak here about Modern Orthodox, but we also mention the trend  for some Orthodox rabbis to violate clear statements in Shulchan Aruch and poskim when it comes to women’s rights to have a GET on demand.  Some husbands can be forced to divorce, but these are rare. We see rabbis who humiliate husbands and coerce in violation of the Shulchan Aruch, and they are not Modern Orthodox. In fact, one  Yeshiva rabbi in Philadelphia went so far as to pronounce a married woman free to remarry, and the Modern Orthodox condemned it. To my knowledge, other than myself, no Orthodox rabbis condemned it publicly, although almost all of them condemn it privately.

Rav Pinchus Rabinowitz: Forced Get produced through Quebec's Divorce Law

Update Tuesday August 4 - added description of rabbis who signed the psak

Important update Thursday July 30:  I just received a message from Rav Chaim Zev Malinowitz - a prominent rav and posek who is also a  good friend of Rav Kaufman - that this post is moot. That in fact Rav Kaufman has not written a get in this case and is not planning on writing a get for this woman without the agreement of the Rabbonim of Montreal except  if the 2 parties come to Monsey, he will be mesader the get if he is convinced that they are both willing and no kefiyah exists (which as of now is a problem). The following is an excerpt from what he sent me after he spoke with Rav Kaufman about this matter. He gave me permission to quote him.

 The whole story meetzeedoh as written  is basically loh hayya v'lo nivra.

Yes, he agreed to come to Montreal to be mesader a get IF the Rabbonim there are ok with him doing so  ,and if there is no question of kefiyah. 

They were not ok with it, and then he found out that there was a shayloh of kefiyah.

end of story meetzeedoh 

RSZK has enemies., cause he's a loh sagooroo mipnei ish kind of guy.

You were used. 

Look carefully at all your documents--he did nothing but have a hava amina to go be mesader cause he was asked to by the wife's to'ayn.

Nothing else happened meetzeedoh.

He stands ready to be mesader a get IF

a)the parties come to Monsey, he will not go to Montreal (because the rabbonim there object to his coming there and being mesader a get)

b)if all the lawyers come, if she undoes what she did there (causing a kefiyah shayloh) and he is satisfied that no other kefiyah exists .

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

Prominent Rabbonim  Invalidate a Get Kfiyah arranged  By Bais Horaah  of Rav Chaim Flohr and  Rav Shloma Zalman Kaufman 

Bais Horaah of Flohrs Kollel in Monsey have utilized the Get Law of Quebec to force a Get! In Schwimmer / Kohn matter they came into the picture when no other Rav in Canada would preside over such a forced Get.

Famous Rabbonim on both sides of the Atlantic are distressed about this get being advanced by Rav Chaim Flohr and Rabbi Kaufman  of Bais Horaah inc. , and are shocked at this of the Bais Din power despite the man’s side never being called to their Bais Din and never having signed a Shtar Berorin / or even presented their side in a Bais din at all! And plus the damage and the ramifications that will result to the orthodox public.

See the following documents:

  Rav Kaufman's Letter Plus Court Edict 

בס"ד

אלו הם שמות הרבנים החותמים

הרה"ג הר"ר שמואל אליעזר שטערן שליט"א

חבר בד"ץ דמרן הגר"ש וואזנער זצ"ל

ראש ישיבת חוג חת"ס

רב מערב בני ברק

הרה"ג הר"ר שריאל רוזנברג שליט"א

ראש בית דין בני ברק

רב שכונת רמת דוד

הרה"ג הר"ר משה שאול קליין שליט"א

דומ"ץ בביד"ץ דמרן הגר"ש וואזנער זצ"ל

ורב שכונת "אור החיים" - בני ברק

הרה"ג הר"ר חיים מאיר וואזנער שליט"א

ממלא מקומו וגאב"ד בית דין דמרן הגר"ש וואזנער זצ"ל

הרה"ג הר"ר יעקב מאיר שטערן שליט"א

מו"צ בבי"ד דמרן הגר"ש וואזנער

וחבר הבד"ץ דקרית וויזניץ - בני ברק

MenachemZecharya Zilber Freiman Rov Hisachdus HArabonim

·        I have been asked by Rav Chaim Flohr Kolel Head of Monsey New York and Rav Yonoson Binyomin Weiss of Montreal to state my opinion on the matter of a GHET that must be given in Montreal based on the implementation of the “Quebec  Get Law “as to whether  the GHET to be given  is valid, or invalid or Void.

·        Having read the Get law and also the personal demands presented by the woman in this case, and the ruling of the judge in this matter it is apparent that it is because of this particular case that I have been asked as to whether such a get is valid. 

·        I hereby declare that the absolute truth is that according to the torah law this get would be Passul and Batul and Void. And should the woman marry with this Get she would be required to Leave both men and applicable all the Mishnah laws pertaining a woman who marries a forbidden one.

·        I have not come to explain in great detail  the Halacha so my words will be limited to clarify that

In this  particular case one cannot rely on even  those  Poskim that are lenient  on certain  specific force in  certain situations  and to my knowledge in this case  there  does not exist any  Posek to allow force.

·     The Get law of Quebec  the root and aim of the law is that should the Husband fail to remove all obstacles which prevent her from remarrying  as according to the torah (by not giving a Get) Then  Quebec Court will prevent the husband from entering any new claims  or responding to both money matters and claims presented by the woman according to the Quebec laws and also his rights to his children both custody and visitation and on all the matters the Judge will now rule in favor of the woman.

·     Therefore it is simple and clear that in this case will not apply even the heter of the lenient one that when the force is only on other  matters and the husband will by giving a get save himself from on those matters (and only if it amounts the same as she would receive according to normal din torah)then it might  not be considered forced  But in this case it is not so at all because it is clear in the Quebec Get Law  and the Court ruling that the husband is told that he will lose both all money and all visitation claims Should he refuse to give a Get and the word Get is mentioned plainly and openly ,he is warned   that without providing a Get  he will be judged in a way that his responses will not be heard or considered ! But only if he gives a get will he receive a fair hearing in the Quebec Court of nations only then will the defendant be allowed respond to claims that are demanded of him.

Neither can it be said that if the get was written in this forced manner Even if the husband declared that he is giving it voluntarily and annulled all statements of duress and any other matters that would invalidate the get  Even the most lenient of all opinions will not rely on this Since according to this law the husband must attest to the court that he has removed everything that will prevent her from remarrying and unless he does this he will be judged exparte and he will lose all his rights of defense

And should he declare to the bais din that he does not wish to give a get of his free will of course the Bais din will not be misader the get, and he now won’t be able to declare before the courts that he removed all obstacles to his wife’s remarriage  and so he will he will be judged in a manner that he will lose his money and visitation and all  rights to his children

In reference to the get they wish to arrange in Montreal for a lady from a prominent family who went to the courts and claimed from the husband more money then the Halacha allows.

Woe to the eyes that see this and woe to hears that hear this she is defying Toras Moshe and furthermore the Judge has ruled that unless the husband presents to the court by August 21 that he removed every obstacle that prevents his wife from remarriage i.e. giving a kosher Get She will be able to even add to her claims and his responses without out the husband being allowed to be there she will receive everything she wants and the husband will lose all rights to defend himself !

There are two Forced matters on this get

 1. That no husband  agrees to give a get as long  when the woman is making claims which cannot be gotten with Torah law for he knows that the woman will drop those claims and return him his money  in order to receive the get (although even when she withdraws the claim and a get is given we still would judge if this get is kosher because force was  first used )

2. That he is being forced through the Arkous to lose even the rights to answer and what he could save from her claims according to the arkous court laws therefore he is forced to give a Get !Since this  is something that one cannot tolerate and the husband has already stated for many people that he cannot give a Get of his free will until she withdraws the whole case from the court and then he will give he a kosher  get.

This means that aside from the defying Toras Moshe to go o be judged in arkous and asides from the fact she is making claims of sums that do not deserve And the Arkous is telling the Husband that if he doesn’t give her Get it is likely that she will then win all her demands and she can take much more than if he had given a Get And I wonder at the rabbonim of the city that have silenced their voices for the ramifications of this matter who can fathom?

In light of all the aforementioned I is clears that should he give a get prior to her removal of all claims in the Arkaous this Get would be Batul and the rule will be that she must leave both husbands …and should the woman remove all claims and make peace with her husband through peacemakers or Bais din may all the good blessings come to her . 

Menachem  Zecharyah Silber

Avbd Freiman          

Yitzchok Eizik Menachem  Eichenstein

 AvBD Galanta

Yehuda meshulam Dov  Polatchuk

Avbd Meged yehuda  Chavar habdatz

בס"ד

בירור דברים בדין גט מעושה ע"י חוק גירושין של מדינת קיובעק

תנן בגיטין [פ"ח ע"ב] גט מעושה בישראל כשר, ובעובדי כוכבים פסול. ופירש הרשב"ם [ב"ב מ"ח ע"א] גט המעושה, שכופין אותו לבעל להוציא, אם בישראל הוא כשר שכפוהו ישראל וכגון דאמר רוצה אני: בעכו"ם פסול, ואע"ג דאמר רוצה אני וכו'.

ובסוף המשנה קתני ובעכו"ם חובטין אותו ואומרין לו עשה מה שישראל אומר לך ופירשב"ם ובעכו"ם, אם אנו רוצים לכופו על ידי עכו"ם ויהיה הגט כשר מלמדים אנו לעכו"ם שיאמרו לו עשה מה שישראל אומר לך, דהשתא נמי מצוה לשמוע דברי חכמים עכ"ל. ועי' בתוס' ב"ב מ"ח ע"א ד"ה גט בסו"ד וז"ל: והא דאמר בגיטין [דף פ"ח ע"ב] לפניהם ולא לפני עכו"ם כיון שהעישוי על פי דייני ישראל לאו היינו לפני עכו"ם, דלפני עכו"ם היינו כשהעישוי נעשה על פי דייני עכו"ם עכ"ל.

ביאור הדברים דאף שהגט צריך להיכתב ולהינתן מרצון הבעל, ולכן גט מעושה פסול שהבעל לא גירש מרצונו, מכל מקום באופן שכופין אותו לגרש למדין מהמשנה בערכין [כ"א ע"א] דכופין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני, וכ"ה ברמב"ם פ"ב מהלכות גירושין הלכה כ': מי שהדין נותן שכופין אותו לגרש את אשתו ולא רצה לגרש, בית דין וכו' וכו', מכין אותו עד שיאמר רוצה אני, ויכתוב הגט והוא גט כשר.

וכתב עוד הרמב"ם: ולמה לא בטל גט זה שהרי הוא אנוס בין ביד גויים בין ביד ישראל, שאין אומרין אנוס אלא למי שנלחץ ונדחק לעשות דבר שאינו מחויב בו מן התורה לעשותו, כגון מי שהוכה עד שמכר או נתן, אבל מי שתקפו יצרו הרע לבטל מצוה או לעשות עבירה, והוכה עד שעשה דבר שחייב לעשותו וכו', אין זה אנוס ממנו, אלא הוא אנס עצמו בדעתו הרעה. לפיכך, זה שאינו רוצה לגרש מאחר שהוא רוצה להיות מישראל, רוצה הוא לעשות כל המצוות ולהתרחק מן העבירות, ויצרו הוא שתקפו, וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו ואמר רוצה אני כבר גירש לרצונו עכ"ל.

ולענין הלכה כתב בשו"ע אם אנסוהו ישראל שלא כדין פסול, ובבית שמואל כתב לפרש וז"ל: משמע לכאורה דפסול מדרבנן, וליתא אלא אפילו מדאורייתא פסול כמו שכתבו ברש"י והר"ן ובטור וכן משמע בסעיף ז', וכן אם אנסוהו עכו"ם כדין הגט בטל וכו' עכ"ד ר"ל שבסעיף ז' כתב המחבר אנסוהו ישראל לגרש שלא כדין ואמר רוצה אני, וגם ביטל המודעא או לא מסרה [ר"ל המודעא] פסול, ואעפ"כ פסלה מן הכהונה עכ"ל המחבר, ומדכתב לרבותא שפסלה מן הכהונה שמע מינה דמן הדין הגט בטל מדאורייתא, ורק משום ריח הגט [שהוא חומרא בעלמא] פסלה מן הכהונה, וכ"כ להלכה הט"ז בסק"ט ובערוה"ש סעיף ג'.

ובאנסוהו עכו"ם כתב בשו"ע סעיף ח: אנסוהו כותים לגרש, אם הוא חייב לגרשה מן הדין פסול, ואעפ"כ פסלה מהכהונה, ואם לא היה חייב לגרשה מן הדין אפילו ריח גט אין בו ולא נפסלה מהכהונה, והרמ"א הוסיף על זה וז"ל: ואפילו אם קבל מעות על נתינת הגט לא אמרינן משום זה נתרצה עכ"ד.

הרי מבואר דפסולו של גט מעושה ע"י נכרים אף שיש פסק דין שחייב בכפייה לא חלה הדין של ככ"ה על העישוי של נכרים, ולכן הגט בטל מן התורה.

ובאותו מקרה אם נעשתה הכפייה על ידי עובד כוכבים [והבי"ד של ישראל לא ביקשו מהנכרים שיכופו אותו] הגט פסול אף שבאמת היה הבעל חייב לגרש את אשתו, מכל מקום כיון שלא נעשה על ידי בית דין של ישראל אין הגט מועיל להתיר את האשה, אפילו אם אמר הבעל רוצה אני כדרך שהוא עושה ע"י כפיית בית דין.

ב

מהו העישוי שנחשב לאונס לא רק שחבטוהו והכוהו על כך כדקתני להדיא במשנה אלא גם כשאנסוהו בממון כגון שגזלו ממנו מעותיו ואינם רוצים להחזיר לו אלא אם כן יגרש את אשתו כ"כ הרשב"א בתשובותיו ח"ד סי' מ' והובא בב"י סי' קל"ד ומקורו מגמ' ב"ב מ' ע"ב במעשה דפרדיסא, ובשו"ת ה"ר בצלאל אשכנזי סי' ט"ז כתב להוכיח כן מכל הראשונים שכתבו במכירה שאונס ממון הוי אונס והוא הדין בגט ע"ש.

אשר לפ"ז כשהאשה הולכת לערכאות ותובעת ממון שלא כדין ובגלל זה נותן הבעל גט לאשתו הוי גט מעושה כדכתב בשו"ת שבט הלוי בחלק ה' סימן ר"י בסוף תשובתו בזה"ל: באופן שחשש גט מעושה במקומו עומד כיון שהוא כפיית ממון ע"י אחרים, וכבר יצאה הלכה לכלל ישראל שאונס ממון נקרא ג"כ אונס כמבואר שם באה"ע וחו"מ ובתשובת מהר"ב אשכנזי סימן ט"ז, ומהרי"ק סימן ס"ג ובמכתב אליהו סוף פרק י"ט ובשאר הרבה פוסקים, ואין עיצה אלא שימחלו לו הקנס, ושהיא תכתוב כן לערכאות, וכשהוא חפשי מזה לפעול אצלו על הגט ברצון עכ"ד.

ונראה דבכה"ג שערכאות מחייבים ממון שלא כדין הגט פסול אפילו במקום שיש פסק דין של כפייה, דמאחר שתובעים ממון שלא כדין הרי סיבת הדבר שנותן הגט הוא משום שאינו רוצה שיגנבו ממנו ממון, ומאחר שזה הכפייה הוא שלא כדין דאסור לישראל לגזול ממון ע"י ערכאות דהוי מסירה וגזילה, ועוד בכה"ג שגם אחרי נתינת הגט מונעים ממנו איזה זכות שלא כדין הרי באופן זה לא חייב ליתן גט והכפייה הוא שלא כדת שהרי הוא מפסיד שלא כדין בגלל נתינת הגט, ועוד מאחר שכופין שלא כדין הרי בממילא באופן זה בטלה הדין של כפייה והוי גט מעושה.

ואף עישוי של ישראל הוא ע"י שכופין אותו בגופו כלשונו של הרמב"ם הנ"ל "וכיון שהוכה עד שתשש יצרו ואמר רוצה אני כבר גירש לרצונו" אבל לא כן הוא כשאנסוהו בממון שאין אמירת רוצה אני יוצאת מעמקי הלב כיון שלא תשש יצרו, רק אנוס הוא באמירת רוצה אני כדי שלא יגזלו ממנו, ועוד מאחר שאין זה הדרך לכפייה הרי נעשה הכפייה באיסור, והוי כמו אנסוהו שלא כדין, ועוד אפילו אם העישוי הוא רק על דברים המגיעים לה על פי הלכה, אבל מאחר שחוק גירושין הוא שהיא יכולה לתבוע, ולהבעל אין זכות טענה - לטעון כנגדה בודאי יש בה משום חמס. ובאמת נראה שיש לדון /שבאופן שיפסיד הבעל יותר בערכאות מכפי דיני תורה הן בענין ממון הן בענין ביקורי ילדים והוא אינו רוצה ליתן גט עד שיסודר ביניהם מקודם באיזה אופן שיהי', הרי בזה יש לו זכות לעכב הגט עכ"פ עד שתלך לדין תורה, ואף היה הבעל מאלו שכופין, וכן פסקו הבית דין מכל מקום למה לא יהיה לו הזכות לעכב הגט עד שגם היא תעשה כדין תורה, והסברא נותנת שעד שתציית היא לדין תורה הרי הוא פטור מליתן הגט, דמעולם לא נתחייב בנתינת הגט אם זה גורם לו פסידא שלא כדין, ופשוט.

ומכל שכן בנדון דידן דמעולם לא תבעה אותו לדין תורה - שהרי לא שלחה אליו הזמנה לדין תורה, והיא שהתחילה בערכאות, ואף אם התירו לה ג' רבנים בעל פה הרי אין בכחם להפקיר ממונו והיא הלכה לתבוע תביעות שלא כדין, ואין כאן היתר ערכאות רק איסור גזילה ומסירה ועל ידי גלגול נתגלגל עוד איסור של איסור אשת איש שמחמת זה יהיה הבעל מוכרח ליתן לה גט כשר עפ"י ערכאות דעפ"י הלכה הרי זה גט מעושה ומה שיש כאן איסור הליכה לערכאות וחילול השם באופן מבהיל משתמשים בחוק גירושין לאיסור ממה נפשך אם לא יתן גט יהי' איסור גניבה ואם כן יתן גט יהי' גט מעושה, ועי"ז אחרים יראו ונמצא שהתירא דערכאות הוא מתלמידיו של ירבעם בן נבט ועל כן עליהם לצאת מיד ולהתוודות שנכשלו במכשול גדול ופרצו בזה לאחרים חומות קדושת ישראל, ואולי כל זה נעשה בעצת אנשים שלא ידעו בטיב הלכה ועכשיו שיראו שהלכו בדרך עקלקלות ישובו מדרכם וטוב להם, וכדברי רבינו יונה בשערי תשובה בשער הרביעי וסר עונו ברוב גודל כשרון המעשה שהוא בהיפך מן המעשה אשר גואל ואשר חטא בו, ולכן עליהם להקשיב לגדולי המורים ולהפסיק מלשמוע לאנשים המשיאים אותם עצות מתוחכמות שאין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו.

Nasal balloon therapy helps fluid buildup in middle ear common to kids

Vancouver Sun

 A cheap and simple procedure that seems more like a party trick than a medical therapy appears to help young children clear their ears of fluid, a condition sometimes called glue ear.

British researchers reported Monday that having affected children inflate a balloon by blowing air through their nostrils helped rid the middle ear of fluid and re-establish its proper air pressure.

Though not all benefited from the procedure, nearly 40 per cent more of the children who used the technique had fluid-free ears at three months when compared to children who didn't use the nasal balloon therapy, the researchers reported in the Canadian Medical Association Journal.

The authors said the technique could reduce the needless prescribing of antibiotics for this problem. Studies have shown antibiotics are ineffective against this problem, but doctors often prescribe them anyway.

Lead author Dr. Ian Williamson said wider use of the technique might also reduce the need for surgeries to insert drainage tubes in the ears of affected children.

"It works early on and some children are benefiting," said Williamson, a family physician and associate professor of primary care at the University of Southampton in Britain.

שקד: "ישראל לא תהפוך מקלט לסרבני גיטין"

Bhol

שרת המשפטים הבטיחה הפעלת סנקציות נגד סרבני גט לנשיא 'ועידת רבני אירופה', הגר"פ גולדשמידט

"חשוב לטפל בנושא סרבני בתי הדין באירופה. סבלן של העגונות הדיר שינה מעיניהם של שלוחי הציבור, רבנים ודיינים, לאורך כל ההיסטוריה, אנחנו נעשה כל שביכולתנו להקל על סבלן – לא נסכים שישראל תהפוך למקלט לסרבני גיטין באירופה", כך אמרה שרת המשפטים איילת שקד לנשיא 'ועידת רבני אירופה', אב"ד ורבה של מוסקבה, הגאון רבי פנחס גולדשמידט שנועד עימה בירושלים.

הצעת חוק בעניין שגובשה על ידי הרבנות הראשית לישראל ו'ועידת רבני אירופה' הגיש בקדנציה הקודמת ח"כ אברהם מיכאלי והיא הוגשה מחדש לאחרונה ע"י הח"כים בכנסת הנוכחית; יעקב מרגי, עליזה לביא וינון מגל.

לפי ההצעה, יופעלו סנקציות וההענשה כלפי סרבני בתי הדין באירופה, עפ"י החוק הישראלי והבינלאומי, ע"י סמכות שיפוטית, נגד אנשים אלה שיגיעו לישראל, כפי שהציע ביה"ד הרבני הגדול בשנת תשס"ד.

בדברי ההסבר להצעה"ח נכתב: "בעוד שבישראל לבתי הדין הרבניים כוח שהוענק להם ע"י המדינה להטיל סנקציות על אנשים אשר מסרבים להחלטות בית הדין, הרי שבגולה, הם מתעלמים כליל מהחלטות בתי הדין, אשר להם אין כוח משפטי תופס – דבר שגורם להם להיות חסרי שליטה.
[...]

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