Nachlaot abuse scandal - What is the significance of an apology?

I received this document and comments today

Thought you might find this interesting and would like to post it on your site.  This was posted in the neighborhood of Nachlaot during the 10 days of Tchuva.

It obviously raised many questions. 

1. If M is writing a letter of apology stating that SKV is innocent of what he thought she was guilty of as is implied in the Hebrew, does this mean that he no longer believes his children were molested by a cult to convert them to Christianity? (Since she was believed to be the head of this cult?)

2. If this is true, where does he draw the line of reality and rumor?

3. What implications does this have for Rav Berkovitz in his belief of what he is claiming in Sanhedria?

Around the same time that this apology was put up, most of the material on Rotternet was taken down. 

Regards, and Chag Sameach

YNET reporter infiltrates the Taliban women of Jerusalem

Learning that touches the heart and soul by Allan Katz

Va'yelech 74 Hakhel - Learning that touches the heart and soul

 Guest post by Allan Katz

The Parasha-Portion of Va'yeileich - Devarim- Deut. 31:10-13 deals with the mitzvah of ' Hakhel where the king read passages from the Torah in the presence of the whole nation. All the men, women, and children - including infants had to attend the event. It was a re-enactment of giving of the Torah on Mount Sinai. It took place in the temple in Jerusalem after the Sabbatical year during the festival of Succoth, once in 7 years. The Shmittah -Sabbatical year and Succoth allude to God's divine protection and providence, and Israel's faith and loyalty to their God.

The Talmud – Cha'giga 3, asks why the ' infants- ha'taf ' had to attend? Two answers are given. Even if these infants do not benefit directly from the ' hakhel experience', their parents and especially their mothers are credited for bringing them. The underlying reason is - by bringing their infants and making sure every person would be present at this event, they show an appreciation of the importance and centrality of the Torah for the Jewish nation and for future generations. The Talmud – Masechet Sofrim adds the following reason - there is in fact a benefit and intrinsic reward for the infants themselves from the Hakhel experience. People would according to their intellectual levels and obligations, either engage in studying the words of the Torah, or just listen to the reading of the king, but all would be emotionally moved by the ' Hakhel ' experience which would make them more appreciative of the wonder and awe of God, to love his law and be more committed to God and his Torah. The Malbim explains that the toddlers and infants will be affected emotionally in a bigger way than the adults by the incredible atmosphere of fear and love for God and awesome sight of millions of Jews standing united for hours for the sole purpose of hearing the lessons that the king is reading from the Torah. Their lack of intellectual understanding allows the imagination to make an indelible impression of what they see and experience. This experience is intrinsically valuable as it will contribute to the love and fear of God when they become obligated to do the mitzvoth.

The purpose of the Hakhel experience is to move people emotionally, so that their learning experience will touch their hearts and souls and motivate them to higher levels of love and fear of God. The big events such as the festivals do the same thing and give us an ' emotional lift' out of our routine existence. But our aim should be that all our learning and experiences should touch our hearts and souls.

When it comes to our kids' education, people are becoming aware of the importance of social-emotional learning to help kids regulate their emotions and improve their social skills, but no attention is being paid to something equally important – that a kid's learning should touch their hearts and souls. The reason that this does not happen is that learning is driven by extrinsic motivators like grades and competition. Kids, parents and teachers focus on how well kids are doing, and any emotional input is put into the ' good job' praises or expressions of disappointment. Instead success or failure should be experienced only as information. This allows parents and teachers help kids to focus on what there are doing and learning , making meaning of what they are doing, sharing their learning and learning from others , and ' connecting to ' the learning so that the learning touches their hearts and souls. Instead the emotional connection is not with the learning but with the grade or position in the classroom rankings.

Curriculum should be based on kids' interests and what is relevant and meaningful to their lives. They should be expressing their opinions and perspectives in the context of a caring, cooperative learning community and not just giving the answers that teachers want. In this way they will develop a love for learning, act on newly acquired knowledge in other areas as well and show a commitment to the values underlying their learning. They should be hearing stories of real people whose lives give expression to lessons learned and they should also tell their own stories and share their own experiences. The Mitzvah of ' Hakhel' comes to remind us to open our hearts to our learning and that all learning and experiences can and should touch our hearts and souls and those of our children and students.

Rambam - Two Perspectives - Dr. James Diamond and Dr. Dov Friedberg

The embedded video doesn't seem to work. Use the link below to go directly to the site
Koshertube

The latest big sexual assault survey is (like others) more hype than science

Washington Post

Stewart Taylor Jr., an author,  journalist and Brookings Institution nonresident senior fellow, is writing a book with KC Johnson about the alarm over campus sexual assault. Taylor disagreed with the conclusions of one of the largest surveys of sexual violence and misconduct on campus and the way it was reported by the media

“Survey: 1 in 5 women in college sexually assaulted.”

This headline, on The Washington Post’s long Sept. 21 article about a large survey of students at 27 public and private universities across the country college, is false.

Although the survey, by the Association of American Universities (AAU), was itself deliberately designed to exaggerate the number of sexual assaults on campus, even the AAU said that “estimates such as ‘1 in 5′ or ‘1 in 4′ as a global rate” across all universities is [sic] oversimplistic, if not misleading.”

This is not to suggest that The Post misrepresented the AAU survey’s findings any more than did most major news media. Such advocacy-laden surveys on campus sexual assault — and breathless media reports overstating their already exaggerated findings — have become the norm in this era of hysteria about the campus sexual assault problem.

The problem is no doubt serious, if shrinking. But it has been vastly exaggerated by the Obama administration, anti-rape activists, their media allies and universities pandering to them. It’s no surprise to see the AAU joining this chorus.

Below are three ways in which the 288-page AAU survey report is grossly misleading, as are others like it and the credulous media coverage of them all.

First, the extraordinarily low response rate of students asked to participate in the AAU survey — 19.3 percent — virtually guaranteed a vast exaggeration of the number of campus sexual assaults.

Even the AAU acknowledged that the 150,000 students who responded to the electronic questionnaire were more likely to be victims of sexual assault than the 650,000 who ignored it because “non-victims may have been less likely to participate.” [...]

A more reliable estimate came in 2014 from the Justice Department’s annual National Crime Victimization Survey: No more than 1 in 160 (0.6 percent) of college women per year — or 1 in 32 (3 percent) over five years — are sexually assaulted.[...]

A Review of International Beit Din for Agunos - Case 105 by Rabbi Sasson

I was just informed of an excellent article which provides a cogent analysis for the layman of the halachic errors found in one of the IBD's rulings - Case 105. It explains why there are such strong objection to the IBD by Rav Schachter and other major talmidei chochomim - and that it isn't a case of eilu v'eilu. 

The article appears in the September 22  edition of Torah Musings

I am just going to quote part of it - clink on the above link for the full article.

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

As the controversy surrounding the International Beit Din (“IBD”) continues to swirl, there is some confusion among the general public regarding the nature of the objections to the IBD. While Batei Din have disagreed from time immemorial, this particular disagreement is qualitatively different, not just a disagreement about conclusions but a disagreement about competence. Leading dayanim have declared the IBD incompetent to decide aguna cases, but their reasons are still unknown to the general public.

Rav Hershel Schachter published a letter encouraging his students and colleagues to not rely on IBD rulings, to which other dayanim across the country added their agreement.¹ Specifically, Rav Schachter challenged a particular ruling relying on a well-known opinion of the Ritva. This is a reference to the IBD psak (ruling) on Case 105 (from here on: Psak 105), available in both English and Hebrew on the IBD website.² The IBD website tells us that “This psak is representative of several decisions handed down by the International Beit Din.”  

Additionally, Rabbis Simcha Krauss and Yehuda Warburg of the IBD have written with regard to Psak 105 that “This psak din as well as other IBD decisions are available for public scrutiny on our website.”³ As such, it seems appropriate to subject Psak 105 to the examination which Rabbis Krauss and Warburg have invited. I strongly encourage any reader not to take my word, but to read the English and Hebrew versions of Psak 105 in conjunction with this review. This review will assume that the reader is generally familiar with the contents of Psak 105, including the background and final decision.

First, a disclaimer: I am under no delusion of being a halakhic decisor. I am certainly not qualified to issue a psak in the complex areas of Even Ha-ezer and heter agunot. As such, this review will not engage in detailed analysis of the various halakhic issues involved. The purpose of this review is to identify the crucial halakhic issues that a complete and coherent psak crafted by a qualified and competent Beit Din would necessarily address.[...]

Ramban's view of sexuality explained by Prof James Diamond's

The following are excerpts from the beginning of Prof James Diamond's article  about the significance of having two genders and sexuality in the Torah. The full article is available for free from Academia.  I found it very thought provoking but am not claiming anything else. For those of you who don't like academic articles or don't want to read something mixed with the views of heretical scholars - this is not for you.

 Nahmanides and Rashi on the One Flesh of Conjugal Union: Lovemaking vs. Duty

 Harvard Theological Review  102:2 (2009) 193–224 

 [...]

The argument that ensues in this article will demonstrate, firstly, that a prominent example of this feature of Nahmanidean exegesis pertains to the domain of interhuman relations. Here I will focus particularly on those “truths” his exegesis discloses about the spousal relationship. Secondly, Nahmanides’ view of the spousal relationship is offered as paradigmatic of his kabbalistic theology, which not only does not displace its concrete social, psychological, anthropological, and juristic realia, but actually complements them. Thirdly, the case will be made that Nahmanides’ narrative exegesis, with its overarching quest for the plain sense of the text, is not intended simply to sate his readers’ intellectual and literary curiosity but also practically shapes his normative positions. In this particular context I will explore how his exegetical construct of a primordial composite human being, its gendered bifurcation, the definitive ideal of spousal union, the subsequent relational tensions between man and woman, and their conflict and resolution into a gendered hierarchy, all dramatized by the Garden of Eden narrative, inform his normative framework for the conduct of conjugal duties. […]

Nahmanidean metaphysics envisions a dynamic interplay within the internal recesses of the Godhead consisting of an ebb and flow of energy exchanged between its female and male potencies. The perpetual struggle for a proper balance between the two infuses the narrative relationships between their earthly counterparts of man and woman with far more significance than they otherwise would have.10 Although others have noted the mystical enhancement of the sexual act in the kabbalistic tradition,11 studies of this aspect of kabbalistic thought have tended to focus on the precise identification of sefirotic allusions and symbolism. Insufficient attention has been paid to the model God poses simply as a unitary being (albeit, paradoxically, a dynamic one consisting of sefirot, or intradeical emanations) in his engagement with and governance of the world. As Gershom Scholem put it, “In its totality the individual elements of the life process of God are unfolded yet constitute a unity.”12God’s macro-relationship with both the world and Israel presents an archetype for imitatio dei in the micro-relationships between human beings and, in particular, between opposite genders. […]

The first negative divine assessment of God’s creation is of the lonely condition of the male deprived of female companionship in the second chapter in Genesis. All other creations were judged “good,” whereas this single product of the originating process is “not good”—“for it is not good for man to be alone”—prompting a corrective creative measure: “I will make for him a helpmate” (Gen 2:18). The exegetical question posed by this particular verse is what precisely is “not good” about the solitary state of man. For Rashi the phrase “not good” expresses a grave theological concern that man’s presence as the sole representative of his species on earth will miscast him as a singularity leading to his deification: “That they should not say, ‘there are two powers: God is unique among the higher beings as he has no partner, and this [man] is unique among the lower since he has no partner.’”16 […]

Nahmanides, on the other hand, sees the “not good” as an existential malaise of Adam’s resulting from his being a single composite entity of male and female.17First he accedes to the rabbinic opinion that original man was created with two faces, male and female back to back:18 “It is likely that this account is according to the one who holds they were created with two faces.” He then explains the mechanics of self-reproduction: “and they were made to have the natural means whereby the reproductive male organ would enable the female reproductive organ to give birth.” Once the anatomical features of this primal being have been determined, Nahmanides addresses God’s assessment of its value and identifies that facet which elicits God’s not good, and he explains how “I will make him a helpmate opposite him” responds to the problem. God realizes that “it is good that the mate stand opposite him so that he can see it and either separate from it or unite with it according to his will.”19 It is crucial to note that since Nahmanides establishes a possible procreative biology of the primordial androgynous being, it is not the negative prospects for propagation of the species that he views as the problem. What is problematic about this original condition is the permanent state of unity between the male and female and the lack of choice to either form or sever a relationship with another human being. The “good” of the human species is that there can be both separation and union between the sexes, each instigated by an independent exercise of will. We have here none other than a definition of man as a relational being whose “goodness” lies in his capacity to enter into and leave relationships.20 On this issue Rashi exhibits no concern for the relational facet of man, while Nahmanides is keenly sensitive to the vacuity of a life devoid of the other where relations are a static given rather than attained and maintained. It is important to note here that I do not intend to portray Nahmanides as a liberal advocate of equality between the sexes but only to emphasize his appreciation for the complexity of human relationships.■

U.S. Soldiers Told to Ignore Sexual Abuse of Boys by Afghan Allies

NY Times

Rampant sexual abuse of children has long been a problem in Afghanistan, particularly among armed commanders who dominate much of the rural landscape and can bully the population. The practice is called bacha bazi, literally “boy play,” and American soldiers and Marines have been instructed not to intervene — in some cases, not even when their Afghan allies have abused boys on military bases, according to interviews and court records.

The policy has endured as American forces have recruited and organized Afghan militias to help hold territory against the Taliban. But soldiers and Marines have been increasingly troubled that instead of weeding out pedophiles, the American military was arming them in some cases and placing them as the commanders of villages — and doing little when they began abusing children.

“The reason we were here is because we heard the terrible things the Taliban were doing to people, how they were taking away human rights,” said Dan Quinn, a former Special Forces captain who beat up an American-backed militia commander for keeping a boy chained to his bed as a sex slave. “But we were putting people into power who would do things that were worse than the Taliban did — that was something village elders voiced to me.”

The policy of instructing soldiers to ignore child sexual abuse by their Afghan allies is coming under new scrutiny, particularly as it emerges that service members like Captain Quinn have faced discipline, even career ruin, for disobeying it.

After the beating, the Army relieved Captain Quinn of his command and pulled him from Afghanistan. He has since left the military.[...]

The American policy of nonintervention is intended to maintain good relations with the Afghan police and militia units the United States has trained to fight the Taliban. It also reflects a reluctance to impose cultural values in a country where pederasty is rife, particularly among powerful men, for whom being surrounded by young teenagers can be a mark of social status.[...]

But the American policy of treating child sexual abuse as a cultural issue has often alienated the villages whose children are being preyed upon. The pitfalls of the policy emerged clearly as American Special Forces soldiers began to form Afghan Local Police militias to hold villages that American forces had retaken from the Taliban in 2010 and 2011.[...]

The GOP’s dangerous ‘debate’ on vaccines and autism

Washington Post

The CNN moderator laid out the question for Ben Carson like a baseball on a tee, just waiting to be crushed.

“Dr. Carson, Donald Trump has publicly and repeatedly linked vaccines, childhood vaccines, to autism, which, as you know, the medical community adamantly disputes,” Jake Tapper said. “You’re a pediatric neurosurgeon. Should Mr. Trump stop saying this?”

For months, Carson has touted his medical expertise while on the campaign trail. And in the weeks since the first debate, the famed surgeon has risen in the polls as a milder-mannered, more rational alternative to Trump.

Now was his chance for a home run; a big hit as swift and incisive as any surgical operation.

Instead, Carson bunted.

“Well, let me put it this way,” he began hesitantly. “There has — there have been numerous studies, and they have not demonstrated that there is any correlation between vaccinations and autism.”

Carson’s tepid response drew immediate criticism from doctors and pediatricians across the country.

“No Ben Carson,” Baltimore pediatrician Scott Krugman wrote on Twitter. “The answer is ‘yes’ Donald Trump is wrong. Vaccines don’t cause autism. What are you talking about?”

Yet, on an issue that could prove prickly for Republicans in the general election, Carson’s comment was actually the most forceful of the night.

Trump essentially doubled down on his past statements by again suggesting that vaccines, or concentrations of them, cause autism.

“Autism has become an epidemic,” he warned. “Twenty-five years ago, 35 years ago, you look at the statistics, not even close. It has gotten totally out of control.”

Rand Paul, like Carson, a doctor, also equivocated on the issue.

“I’m all for vaccines,” he said. “But I’m also for freedom.”

The exchange, particularly Trump’s comments, drew a sharp response from autism groups.

“Despite a wealth of scientific evidence debunking any link between autism and vaccinations, tonight’s Republican primary debate featured prominent commentary from a leading candidate repeating inaccurate information suggesting a link,” the Autistic Self Advocacy Network said in a statement. “Autism is not caused by vaccines — and Autistic Americans deserve better than a political rhetoric that suggests that we would be better off dead than disabled.” [...]

Calling get-refusal a tort: Direct confrontation between religious values and secular ones

This is an interesting article from Susan Weiss about using secular tort law to "solve" the Aguna problem. It shows the inherent conflict between secular and religious thought in this matter.  "Susan Weiss is the founder and executive director of the Center for Women’s Justice and a doctoral candidate at Tel Aviv University in sociology and anthropology. She initiated the tort cases described in this paper."

The following are the last two pages. Click the link to read the whole thing.

http://www.brandeis.edu/hbi/gcrl/images/SusanWeissWP.pdf

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

Dialogues:

Calling get-refusal a tort provokes a direct confrontation between religious values and modern ones. Get-refusal is about male dominion over women. Equal power to sue for divorce is about liberty, autonomy, and equality for women. It is a modern notion. The tort of get-refusal forces the rabbinical court to confront modernity and to conduct a dialogue, whether they want to or not, with women..

It was, and remains, the hope of Israeli cause lawyers that this dialogue and confrontation would yield a transformative response from the rabbinic court and religious communities that will untie the knots between gender, equality, and Jewish divorce law. 

Various transformative response are imaginable, some more radical than other, all of which are

possible: (1) The rabbinic courts could embrace the tort of get-refusal as a way to help

them resolve difficult cases. Theoretically at least, the rabbis could encourage women to

sue for damages in the civil court as a way of warning husbands against recalcitrance. (2)

Rabbinic leaders might be encouraged to find internal systemic halakhic solutions to the

problem of religious divorce; (3) Alternative Israeli Orthodox rabbis could break with

existing rabbinic judges to form more modern rabbinic courts; and (4) An increasing rift

may develop between the secular and religious courts that would pave the way for the

legislation of secular marriage and divorce in Israel..

Rabbinic Supreme Court Responds to Tort Claims: March 11, 2008:

Despite the effectiveness of the tort law in solving long-standing cases in the rabbinic court (not to mention doing justice), the Israeli rabbinic courts have not embraced tort as a solution, or as a way of ameliorating, the problem of get-refusal. On the contrary. As more and more women have been suing for damages for get-refusal, the rabbinic court has been expressing more and more opposition to those cases on religious grounds, arguing that these case violate the rule against the forced divorce (get meuseh). The rabbis claim that husbands who give the get after they’ve been sued in tort, are not giving the divorce freely, but in response to the tort cases.

 

On March 11, 2008, the Supreme Rabbinic Court (file 7041-21-1)issued a 26 page decision (all obiter dictum) in which it held as follows:

All petitions filed outside the rabbinic court – like petitions to civil courts for damages — that relate to get refusal, whose practical consequence is to acceleratethe delivery of the get, are an interference with the laws of the Torah regardingdivorce, and effectively preclude the possibility of the execution of a [kosher] get…

Attorneys who deal in family law should be advised to weigh carefully their recommendations to clients to file damage claims in the family court for getrefusal. Such recommendations are tantamount to malpractice, and I doubt that attorneys could avoid such claims [of malpractice], even it if they were to sign their clients on waivers to that affect. It can be assumed that clients are not aware, and cannot possibly foresee, what serious consequences and delays can occur inthe delivery of the get , even after the husband has agreed to give the get, if the husband's agreement [to give the get] was given subsequent to a petition for  damages for get-refusal (J. Algrabli).

In short, the rabbinic court declared in no uncertain terms that it would not yield to outside attempts to reform its failings and wielded, once again, the immutable rule against the "forced divorce"(get meuseh), thus re-winding the knot of religion that had for a moment loosened.

In Conclusion

The tort of get-refusal is delineating, distinguishing, demystifying; and defrocking the knots that bind gender, equality, and Jewish divorce law. The tort has prompted an important dialogue in the Israeli courts between modernity and tradition, between liberal principles and religious values. It remains to be seen how that dialogue will play itself out and if the knots that bind Israeli Jewish women unremittingly to their husbands will somehow be undone. It could be that women will lose patience in their attempt to unravel these knots and will simply cut them in order to escape entanglement

Open Orthodox Theology and Repentance

Times of Israel    by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

Sometimes, things are just so outrageous that we need to do a double-take, as we cannot believe what we are seeing. And sometimes, these outrageous things are repeated and form a pattern, shocking us all the more so.

Sadly, recent writings by the leadership of Open Orthodoxy have fit this mold. While I was hoping to start the new year without having to address this issue, wishing that the numerous expressions of highly problematic theology by Open Orthodox leadership would taper off, matters have gone from bad to worse, and there is again an obligation to speak out.

Although one Open Orthodox leader has portrayed these protest writings as personal attacks against him, nothing could be further from the truth. Those of us who speak out in dissent are critiquing the controversial theology and not the personalities involved. Furthermore, it is our wish that there would be no need for these polemics; we only pen protest essays in response to theological instigation. Correlating to the new year wish of this Open Orthodox leader that the critiques cease, it is my new year wish that there be no further instigation or provocation, such that there would be no further need to respond.

This Open Orthodox leader, who serves as the Chairman of the Department of Talmud at Yeshivat Chovevei Torah (YCT), recently suggested that we should commit to a new type of belief in the events in the Torah – a belief that does not intellectually accept the factual truth of these events:

We need to debate what heresy is, not whether it is allowed… A promising direction is to revisit the philosophical meaning of “belief,” and examine to what degree religious belief can be understood as being a-factual; a faith-proclamation, not a factual postulate. Defining belief as a-factual would allow a person of faith to “believe” religiously in the historicity of the biblical narratives and at that same time entertain the postulates of Bible critics.

Then, the day after Rosh Hashana, this same rabbi proposed that God repents, or needs to repent, for his misdeeds, including His creation of a flawed and insensitive halachic system.

I am sorry, but the above statements are, respectively, heretical and blasphemous. Were such statements to emanate from private individuals, it would be one thing, but for these statements to be expressed by one of the most prominent rabbinic scholars and leaders of Open Orthodoxy, who trains all of the movement’s (male) rabbis, is far more concerning. And since the rabbi who espouses these ideas does so quite publicly, those who feel that the ideas are a radical and alarming departure from Orthodoxy have every right to publicly express such.

Shortly prior to this all, another very noteworthy and well-known rabbi who has affiliated with Open Orthodoxy explicated his belief that any ideas which a fully humble person sincerely intuits as correct are actually divine Torah revelations. (The rabbi elaborates that since he feels that ordaining women for the Orthodox rabbinate is the correct approach from a moral and ethical perspective, such ordination becomes revealed and ratified as part of the Torah and is a mitzvah to be pursued (!)).

This same rabbi, who previously proposed that God did not communicate the Torah to Moses in a literal oral sense, recently argued that proper Torah adjudication involves meshing intuitive values with Torah texts, crafting the textual interpretation to match one’s intuitive values:

The posek begins with the refined intuition and moves from there to the formal legal analysis which he consciously or unconsciously bends to conform to his intuition…  Every situation is different and requires a different quality of discernment.  The level of clarity of moral conviction necessary to argue with God (in the case of Abraham – AG) is different than the inner conviction required to manipulate a tosafot or reinterpret a gemara. Areas which do not involve laws of such severity, or do not involve explicit halakhot at all but involve modification or abrogation of minhag – generally accepted practice – require a different quality of discernment.

These radical articles were reposted and endorsed by the president of YCT. (Please also see here.)

(An alternative approach to halachic adjudication was presented by the previously-noted Open Orthodox leader, explaining that halachic decisions should be made by taking rulings found in traditional source texts and combining them with contemporary values. This rabbi criticizes expressions of Modern Orthodoxy whose core is “exclusively Orthodox”, and he instead maintains that a synthesis of Torah and secular values are to be merged in order to arrive at the proper manifestation of Orthodoxy. Please also see here and here.)

After the founder of Open Orthodoxy declared it to be a new and separate movement or denomination, it has undergone an intense radicalization and an accelerated departure away from Orthodoxy, as is glaringly evident from the above and many other sources. (Please also see this important article on the topic.)

I would like to suggest repentance on the part of Open Orthodoxy, but the sad truth is that this movement/denomination has repeatedly ignored calls to reconsider its actions and trajectory and has instead opted for further separation from all that is Orthodox, creating a new theology that, at best, is a lighter and more liberal form of the approach of the early Conservative movement.

A Guide for Avreichim to the Halachos of Tznius Based on a shiur by Hagaon Rav Gershon Meltzer shlita

 Update: Added interview with Rav Eliashiv which doesn't fit exactly in what is being claimed in his name.

================================
Someone recently showed me a pamphlet on tznius with the haskoma of Rav Berkowitz (below) and others including Rav Chaim Kanievsky and Rav Ganz. The organization claims that they have the same authority as Chazal in their psakim dealing with tznius and that they must be accepted as authoritative (I assume that means in Israel by the yeshiva community). When I get a copy I hope to publish the whole thing.

שאלה שנשאלה על ידי למרן ר' חיים קנייבסקי שליט"א בכ"ז ניסן תשע"ה

וזה לשון השאלה: תקנות ב"ד משמר התורה שהוקם ע"י הגרי"ש אלישיב והגר"ש ווזנר לפסוק הלכות ולתקן תקנות בדיני צניעות ולבוש הנשים והגרי"ש אמר שזה בתוקף דת יהודית האם זה מחייב כמנהג המקום גם את בני חו"ל הגרים או נמצאים 

בארץ ישראל  

תשובת מרן: כן, מחייב

From the pamphlet:

Examples of Das Yehudis. -------------------------------------------------------------

There are three types of halachos that are included in the category of Das Yehudis: 

I. Prohibitions Enacted by Chazal, such as the prohibition for a woman to uncover theier arms above the elbow. 

2. Local Custom: The accepted rulmg of all Poskim is that a person is halachically bound to follow the strmgencies of the place where he lives.7 Hence, it is considered a violation of Das Yehudis for a woman to dress in a fashion that is considered immodest in her locale, even if she comes from a place where the prevailing standards of tznius were more lax. For example, if a woman grew up in a community in America where certain forms of dress were acceptable, and she now lives in Yerushalayim, she must abide by the more stringent minhagim of Yerushalayim. 

3. Halachos Enacted by a Beis Din or Local Leaders: The Chochmas Adam[1] rules that the shivah tuvei ha'ir in any community have the power of a beis din, even if they are simply ordinary people dedicated to benefiting the public, and not great Torah scholars, and they may enact binding halachic guidelines for the benefit of society. Just as the directives of the Anshei Knesses HaGedolah and other Torah sages throughout the generations have the status of halachah, every individual must follow the dictates of the community in which he lives, unless a rule is enacted that the majority of the public cannot handle.[2] In Eretz Yisrael, Rav Yosef Shalom Elyashiv and Rav Shmuel Wosner, zichronam livrachah, created the Mishmar HaTorah, a group of rabbanim who are responsible for formulating guidelines on matters of tznius, and the decisions of this entity have this binding status.[emphasis added] Baruch Hashem the Mishmar HaTorah’s guidelines have become increasingly accepted by the public. In light of the above, it should be clear that every garment or sheitel must fit into all the guidelines associated with Das Yehudis in order for it to be worn.

---

[1] Chochmas Adam (Klaal 102 Sif 1)

[2] The rulings of such leaders on issues of tznius therefore have the same force as the rulings of Chazal and must be followed.

Gedolim in Israel severely criticize those who don't accept their appointment for Meir Seminary

Kikar Shabbat

גדולי ישראל במכתב חריף: "מנסים לסלף ובאים בכוח הזרוע"

לאחר מסע הרדיפה של אנשי 'הפלג הירושלמי' נגד מינוי הרבנית רחל בורנשטיין למנהלת סמינר מאיר יוצאים גדולי ישראל במכתב נחרץ בעניין • "מנסים לסלף את דברי מרנן ורבנן" • פרסום ראשון (בארץ)

סערת סמינר מאיר: לאחר מסע הרדיפות של אנשים 'הפלג הירושלמי' נגד הרבנית רחל בורנשטיין שמונתה על ידי גדולי ישראל למנהלת החדשה של סמינר מאיר בבני ברק, מינוי שאושר באופן חוקי גם על ידי עיריית בני ברק, יוצאים גדולי ישראל במכתב נחרץ בנושא.

"הננו בזה להבהיר בדבר הסמינר אשר נוסד על ידי גדולי ישראל ונוהל רבות בשנים על ידי הרב שמואל מאיר שליט"א ישלח לו ה' רפואה שלמה במהרה.

"היות והנהלת הסמינר פנתה למורי דרכו מרנן ורבנן גדולי ישראל שליט"א, כי יש צורך לחזק את צוות ההנהלה, ע"י הוספת מנהלת פעילה לסמינר ולאחר שהרב מאיר הגיש מיוזמתו את התפטרותו לאחראים ע"כ ברשות המקומית.

"ולאחר בירורים מדוקדקים הוחלט ע"י גדולי ישראל כי הרבנית בורנשטיין תחי' היא הראויה ביותר לנהל מוסד חשוב זה, והננו בזה לחזק את ידיה בהמשך עבודת הקודש בחינוך בנות ישראל לדרך ארץ ויראת שמים.

"צר לנו כי מנסים לסלף את דברי מרנן ורבנן חכמי הדור - אשר הנהגתם הם יסוד אמונתנו - בדבר הסמינר ובאים לפעול בכח הזרוע בין כותלי הסמינר ובין מחוצה לה".

את המכתב כתבו הגאון רבי יהודה סילמן והגאון רבי שבח צבי רוזנבלט ואליהם הצטרפו בחתימתם מרנן הגראי"ל שטיינמן, הגר"ח קנייבסקי והגרי"ג אדלשטיין.

Mendel Epstein's post-trial motion for acquital and prosecutor's opposition

   Mendel Epstein's post trial motion for acquital 

   Prosecutor's opposition to  post trial motion for acquittal