Toldos; Raising difficult children vs kids with an easier nature

Guest post by Rabbi Shloime Pollak

 How did Yitzchock Avinu get it so wrong?!?

How could it be that Yitzchock wanted to give the Brochos to Eisav, a murderer and thief, instead of Yaakov Avinu, the perfect well behaved child??

Rivkah Eimeinu, that saw the greatness in Yaakov, and Eisav's shortcomings, probably conveyed her thought to Yitzchock... yet Yitzchock disagreed??

Rashi tells us, that there was a real concern, that Reuvein might join the forces of Eisav??

For questions and comments please email  salmahshleima@gmail.com

Women Rabbis and the Rabbi Bakshi Doron Letter: Time for a Fact Check

Cross-Currents    by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

When you do not like the facts, ignore them. When you do not like the situation, pretend it is not so.

This sentiment can unfortunately be aptly applied to some of the protest on the part of Open Orthodox leadership to the recent resolution of the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) against the ordination and hiring of women as rabbis. The protest has been vicious, it has been sophomoric (sorry to say so, but it is true), it has lacked substance – and, with the just-breaking publication of a crucial document, it has been (further) demonstrated beyond a shadow of a doubt to be rendered irrelevant by clear and undeniable facts.

Readers are urged to please read here about the background of the RCA resolution and why Halacha does not accept the ordination of women as rabbis, and here for a detailed depiction of the types of protest against the RCA resolution in which Open Orthodoxy has engaged and why this protest really misses the mark.

In a November 8 article in Haaretz, Rabba (Open Orthodox female rabbi) Sara Hurwitz, who was the first woman ordained by Rabbi Avi Weiss and who serves as dean of Yeshivat Maharat, the Open Orthodox rabbinical school for women, restates the recently articulated opposition to the RCA resolution and writes:

I found myself teaching communities about the halakhic permissibility of women serving as members of the clergy. My role models were Deborah the Prophetess, Beruriah, and Hannah Rachel Verbermacher, the Maiden of Ludmir. I taught about Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron, the former Chief Rabbi of Israel, who ruled unequivocally in 1993 that “Women can be of the Gedolim (great leaders) of the generation and serve as halakhic decisors.” (Responsa Binyan Av, 65:5.)

As explained in the above-cited article, Deborah the Prophetess was not ordained as a rabbi and did not serve on the Sanhedrin. Nor did Beruriah receive ordination or hold a rabbinic title, nor did Hannah Rachel Verbermacher, known as the Maiden of Ludmir. These women were exceptionally holy and wise, and they generously shared their sagacious counsel with others, but alas they serve as absolutely no basis or precedent to ordain women as rabbis, and they would in all likelihood cringe at the idea and immediately label it heretical.

That brings us to the oft-cited responsum of Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi Doron, the former Sephardic Chief Rabbi. This responsum has been used repeatedly by Yeshivat Maharat leadership and others as a primary basis to confer ordination or its equivalent upon women who graduate their programs. (Please again see the above-cited article as to why the source reference to female rabbinical judges for voluntary arbitration in the immediately prior hyperlink is wholly inapplicable to the ordination of women.) In fact, as Rabbi Bakshi Doron is the only senior Torah sage to really discuss the issue of women serving as halachic decisors, reliance on his position has been pivotal and dispositive for those promoting ordination for women.

Here is the truth about Rabbi Bakshi Doron’s alleged support for the ordination of women:


In a June 23, 2015 letter to the president of the RCA, issued in response to a request for clarification of his position on the ordination of women – months before the RCA resolution was even conceived or drafted – Rabbi Bakshi Doron stated unequivocally:

Regarding your question about ordaining women for the rabbinate: There are those who are claiming reliance of on my sefer (book) Binyan Av – volume 6. I hereby declare that God forbid, one may not ordain a woman to serve as a morah hora’ah (halachic authority) nor to be called “Rabba” (female rabbi). We must caution those in our generation not to follow the example of the Reformers, and to stay clear of their practices (such as ordaining women).

I certainly wrote in my cited responsum that a woman may halachically serve as a halachic decisor, and such has the Chida written (Choshen Mishpat s. 7), but this must be without official appointment or authority… 

…There inheres in the matter (of women serving as rabbis and licensed halachic authorities) a lack of modesty, especially in our generation, in which immodesty is more prevalent than modesty. I thank you for your letter, which has enabled me to remove a source of misinformation.

This is nothing short of a bombshell (although it comes as absolutely no surprise to those of us not caught up in the pro-women rabbis campaign).

It is now crystal clear that the only “real” source invoked by proponents for the ordination of women is anything but, as Rabbi Bakshi Doron unqualifiedly condemns and forbids ordaining women and licensing women as halachic decisors; Rabbi Bakshi Doron’s words had been materially (and unconvincingly from the start) misapplied to promote a reform that he rejects outright. It has already been crystal clear that the halachic authorities of the RCA (and all other preeminent halachic authorities) – Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, of blessed memory, and Rabbi Gedalia Dov Schwartz, Rabbi Hershel Schachter and Rabbi Mordechai Willig – have come out against the ordination of women, as per these rabbis’ presentations to the 2010 RCA convention. It is also crystal clear that there are no greater or equal halachic authorities who sanction the ordination of women. And it is, unfortunately, crystal clear that despite all of this, Open Orthodoxy will not be deterred from continuing to ordain women and to attack the RCA and those who oppose such ordination. This speaks volumes about the commitment of Open Orthodoxy to Halacha and halachic authority. (In this vein, please see here for the recent proclamation of Agudath Israel’s Council of Torah Sages about Open Orthodoxy.)

As I have already written: Some Open Orthodox leaders have alleged that the RCA is placing people outside of Orthodoxy, discriminating against those who do not agree with the RCA position, and changing the rules. Nothing could be further from the truth. The RCA resolution is based on the 2010 pronouncements of the RCA’s poskim (halachic authorities), whose articulation of the issues merely continued the rabbinic tradition of millennia and did not change anything. On the contrary, this problem was not created by the RCA, and those who broke rank with traditional Orthodoxy and introduced the problem and precipitated the present schism should think hard about their actions and trajectory.

There are those who have suggested that rather than ordain women as rabbis or license them as halachic decisors, the time has come to create new, alternative religious titles and positions for women. Aside from the fact that no major poskim have backed this approach, I personally find it to be patronizing and insulting to the superlative roles in traditional Judaism already filled by women. Rather than introducing or contriving new titles, which in my mind smacks of a condescending affirmative action approach to a disadvantaged class, for whom we must fabricate positions in order to make people feel special, why can we not recognize the sheer greatness of Jewish women in their age-old roles as wife, mother, educator/morah and rebbetzin/rabbanit? Women in these capacities have built, sustained, inspired and carried the Jewish People through thick and thin. These roles are at the bedrock of our Mesorah (tradition) and are at times overlooked by those seeking to introduce and innovate. (In a similar vein, please click here for a letter expressing my thoughts about the significance of the traditional approach to bas mitzvah, questioning the propriety of contemporary innovation therein.)

In the broader and public realm, women such as Rabbanit Batsheva Kanievsky, of blessed memory, and Rebbetzins Esther Jungreis, Feige Twerski, Dr. Bruria David, Tzipporah Heller, Tehilla Abramov, Leah Kohn, Ruthie Assaf, Malka Paretzky, Shira Smiles, Rabbanit Yemima Mizrachi, and publishers and editors such as Mrs. Ruth Lichtenstein and Arutz Sheva’s own Mrs. Rochel Sylvetsky, and countless others, have carried and disseminated the messages of Torah teaching, inspiration, enlightenment and policy more effectively and comprehensively than any female rabbis ever have or ever will.

Our entire Mesorah rests on the greatness of women continuing in their eternal positions as mothers, teachers, counselors, communal role models, advisers, and people who inspire others in incalculable ways. Let’s take a step back and give kavod (respect) and show appreciation to these traditional roles and to the women who fill them so amazingly, surpassing any contemporary innovations or contrivances hands down!

Criticism and derech eretz: On striking the correct balance

Shalom Rabbi Eidensohn,

First of all let me state that I think you are doing an extremely important job of bringing this issue to the public's knowledge. I think your willingness to publish this guest post also further demonstrates that your work is being done lesheim shamayim without any agenda.

At the same time, can’t help but wonder about the appropriateness and halachic permissibility of some of comments you and your esteemed brother have been expressing towards RSK and RNG, especially in the comments section. Calling recognized talmidei chachamim and Torah leaders "idiots and fools" is, in my opinion, not only unnecessary for what you are trying to accomplish but also quite possibly a grave violation of serious halachic prohibitions.

I respectfully submit that the same may be true for your comments on whether or not RSK is a capable posek. First, the fact that some anonymous talmid chacham was not impressed by his halacha sefarim does not impress me. There are many respected and accepted halacha sefarim about which various talmidei chachamim might express negative opinions. This has always been true.

(Parenthetically, I don't think familiarity with the responsa literature or lack thereof are necessarily relevant to being a posek. There are and have been many poskim who paskened mainly from their understanding of the sugya. RMF was a prime example. Conversely, there are unfortunately many young “poskim” today who are familiar with much “response literature and can quote freely from a large range of poskim but are incapable of forming their own intelligent opinions based on deep learning of a sugya. If RSK paskens primarily from his extensive knowledge of Gemara and Rishonim, I don’t see any detriment in that.)

Please note that I am not questioning your right - even obligation - to take up these issues and criticize the rabbis in question. I am only questioning the method of communication.

I would like to point out that your own rav, Rav Sternbuch, who is clearly highly agitated over this episode, nevertheless does not engage in ad hominem attacks or questioning the protagonists’ general qualifications. In fact, I believe that his teshuva is a model for how this discourse should be conducted. Notice the respect he accords RSK and RNG.:

First, he calls them אחד מגדולי ראשי הישיבות עם אחד מהפוסקים שם.

When he proceeds to strongly disagree with their reasoning, he writes במחכ"ת , which basically means, “with all due respect to the honor of their Torah personalities.”

Nowhere does he attack them personally or their personal integrity.

I do not see him comparing them to Rabbi Goren. He invokes the Goren episode as a point of reference to a case of how the gedolim reacted to a mamzer being wrongly permitted. Even if you argue, that he meant to draw a veiled comparison, he left that between the lines, and did not do it blatantly.

To summarize, Rav Sternbuch has skillfully demolished their credibility in this particular case and expressed the full monstrosity of what has happened without uttering a single word about the protagonists!

I realize this is a very difficult situation. Impossible really. RSK is a person who has become renowned for selflessness and for care about all sectors of Klal Yisrael, and his yeshiva has produced legions of talmidei chachamim. This in no way justifies his actions here; but his status as a gadol is already established. If anything, let's stick to impugning what was done, without attempting to fell people who have filled important and positive roles in the Torah world.

Call out the actions that have been taken in the strongest possible terms. Alert your readership to the serious and far-reaching implications. But refrain from offering judgements - especially highly speculative ones – on the people involved.

Is Tamar's husband Aaron Being Punished For Trying To Do The Right Thing?

Guest post by Ploni

   Is Aaron being punished

Protest against Tamar Epstein's heter :Rav Shlomo Miller, Rav E.B. Wachtfogel, Rav Moshe Green & Rav Yechiel Tauber

Tamar Epstein case: Is this a reason for tragedies in our communities?

guest post from "fedup with corrupt rabbis"

In my opinion this whole fiasco of Rabbi Kaminetsky and Rabbi Greenblatt is Hashem's way of throwing things back on our face. The Torah alludes to a fact that when one starts to "chip away" at the Torah, then the end result will be heresy. The Rabbis of the generation and especially Rabbi Kaminetsky who has been involved in countless divorce situations and almost always sides with the woman now has a situation which on the surface suggest heresy. This is the repercussion for "chipping away" of the Torah foundations regarding hilchos Gittin. What has been "chipped away" was the fundamental rights of a man in a GET process. Some rabbis got together 20-30 years ago and decided that we have an "Aguna " crisis and immediately started to attack men in divorce matters without justification other than money and greed. 

This is evidenced by the arrest of Mendel Epstein and his cohorts. Evidence shows that monies were accepted to kidnap a non existent or goy at best husband! Same to the RCA who issued a Seiruv against this "non-existent" husband without due process of careful inquiry into the matter. This blog has covered many other famous divorce cases where the MAN has been vilified, but there is always another side to the story. I applaud Rabbi Eidensohn for challenging rabbis in their halachic decisions especially in matters with severe consequences such as this. Chazal state that where there is Chilul Hashem, don't worry about "Kavod Harav" but worry instead about Kovod Hamokom" . I have said many times that I dare anyone to find me one rabbi in this generation that has ever quoted the Gemoro in Shabbos Daf 139 that states "IF YOU SEE TRAGEDY OCCURRING IN YOUR COMMUNITIES, GO AND CHECK YOUR CORRUPTED RABBIS WHO TWIST HALOCHO OR JUDGEMENT". 

We have seen many tragedies in the past years, so why has no one quoted a Gemoro that clearly explains to us the root cause of our sufferings? That's my point! We are living in a state of illusion that our Rabbis are grandiose and "without fault" and "surely don't take bribes" and therefore whatever they do is correct! Therefore Hashem shows us a rabbinic ruling so antithetical to the Torah to awaken us and show us how far we have strayed from the truth. You can argue with me all day, but when you see rabbis supporting women who litigate their husbands in the civil courts without a peep , clearly a major violation in Torah, extricating large sums of money from them, stealing their children, lending support to ORA and others to publicly shame and shun them etc. etc.. with no one today other than maybe Rabbi Gestetner protesting, you will surely get the wrath from heavens to answer for all the injustices. 

Much was stated already before in this blog and in http://www.torahhalacha.blogspot.com/ about the halochos of marriage and divorce. Once you read it and study the Halochos, you will realize how far to the left have today's Rabbis have swung. Our sages took Divorce which was once allowed for a man to forcibly divorce his wife and decreed that it must be done with her consent. So now we have a situation where the modern day rabbis changed it again and allow for the woman to forcibly divorce her husband? They decided that any means is allowed. 

Firstly , no Sholom Bayis is necessary as that was the duty of only "Aharon Hacohen". Then they allow litigating in the civil courts. So then you have a situation such as Aharon Friedman and others like him who went to Bais Din but they come up with all sort of excuses that his Bais Din is unacceptable yadayada. So when they later find themselves in a bind with no GET, the corrupted rabbis pull out their "wild card" called "annulment" and try that method to free the woman. Therefore its no wonder that Rabbi Kaminetsky with Rabbi Greenblatt allowed a woman to remarry without a GET despite all the evidence showing that it cant be done.

If we don't stop these breaches of Torah now, then I fear we will continue to spiral down the pathway of our reformed Jews and pretty soon you will see "reform Jews with beard and payos.

May Hashem save us from the transgressors of the Torah and may we merit to return to the authentic traditions of our Torah.

Tamar Epstein: Story finally reaching the general public

Word is finally spreading. The comments in the second link are many and informative.


http://www.bhol.co.il/article.aspx?id=91759

http://forum.otzar.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=24608

UnOrthodox Protest of the New RCA Resolution Against the Ordination of Women by Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

Guest Post

It is unfortunate that Open Orthodox opponents of the new RCA resolution have vilified the resolution and the RCA in the secular Jewish media, issuing a flurry of attacks in The Jewish Week, Forward and elsewhere. The reason that Open Orthodoxy typically turns to the secular media as the venue for attack on positions with which it does not agree is obvious: the readership of these publications is less Jewishly-educated and is hence more easily influenced, and sympathy for critique of tradition is clearly more prevalent among non-Orthodox audiences. To put it very bluntly, Open Orthodoxy preys on people’s ignorance and emotions, and that is why it publishes its objections on religious issues in secular fora.

Here is an article I published in Times of Israel, in which Open Orthodox protest (in the secular Jewish media) to the new RCA resolution is analyzed. ...

=================================
Halacha should be decided by:

a) rulings of master halachic authorities;b) analysis of controlling halachic texts and precedent; c) popular petition; d) Facebook and Twitter posts; e) satirical entertainment.

If you chose answers a) and b), you are correct. In fact, rulings of master halachic authorities and analysis of controlling halachic texts and precedent have together formed the basis for halachic adjudication for time immemorial, and are classified as such by the original and primary sources of Halacha. If you chose answers c), d) or e), you are incorrect. Or, to put it differently, choosing answers c), d) or e) may be fine and well, but it is not Orthodox.

It is in this vein that we unfortunately need to revisit the issue of rabbinic ordination of women.

The recent Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) resolution against the ordination of women was predicated upon the considered halachic rulings and direct counsel of preeminent halachic authorities, as explained in this article and elsewhere. (Please read the article for insider details about the resolution and the problems with ordaining women.) The resolution reflects classical Orthodoxy/halachic Judaism, which is rooted in submission to Torah authority, even when such authority conflicts with contemporary values of egalitarianism and autonomy. Rabbi Yosef B. Soloveitchik explained that total submission to the yoke of Torah authority and unabashed and unapologetic promulgation of Torah values is the mandate of the Jew, as unpopular as the Torah’s messages and values may be in the eyes of modern society. This is Orthodox Judaism. Rabbi Soloveitchik eloquently explained that Surrender to the Divine Will, as expressed by Halacha, is at the core of our faith and calling.

It is thus with disappointment that some segments around the Orthodox orbit have rejected the RCA’s resolution, and have done so not by turning to halachic authorities greater than those upon whose decisions the resolution rests (the truth is that there are no greater or equal authorities who rule otherwise), but by resorting to extremely non-halachic means. Although the RCA resolution was worded respectfully and factually and is based on clear halachic directives, opponents have resorted to name calling, mud slinging, delegitimizing, satirical/mocking entertainment, popular petition, threats/guilt trips and non-halachic reasoning in an effort to demand halachic recognition of the ordination of women. By taking this matter out of the realm of halachic adjudication and into the world of social media and popular opinion, the supporters of ordination for women have demonstrated beyond a doubt that they have abandoned the halachic process and have hence abandoned Orthodoxy (they have also created a major rift, disingenuously laying the blame for the rift at the door of those who have held the fort and sustained thousands of years of tradition).

Rabbi Soloveitchik, in a famous exposition on the deeper signifance of the Korach Rebellion, explained that Korach sought to change Halacha by departing from the proper approach toward halachic adjudication, in favor of a populist approach that did not submit to preeminent halachic authority and did not respect the system or adhere to its axioms and methodology:

Korach rebelled against authority. All Jews are equal. Hence, everyone is entitled to interpret the law… The study of the law, Korach argued, is an exoteric act, a democratic act, in which every intelligent person may engage. Moshe’s claim to being the exclusive legal authority, and the exclusive interpreter of the law, Korach argued, was unfounded and unwarranted…

 The Oral Law (Halacha) has its own epistemological approach, which can be understood only by a lamdan (advanced Torah scholar) who has mastered its methodology and its abundant material. Just as mathematics is more than a group of equations, and physics is more than a collection of natural laws, so, too, the Halacha is more than a compilation of religious laws. It has its own logos and method of thinking and is an autonomous self-integrated system. The Halacha need not make common sense any more than mathematics and scientific conceptualized systems need to accommodate themselves to common sense.

When people talk of a meaningful Halacha, of unfreezing the Halacha or of an empirical Halacha, they are basically proposing Korach’s approach. Lacking a knowledge of halachic methodology, which can only be achieved through extensive study, they instead apply common-sense reasoning which is replete with platitudes and clichés. As in Aristotelean physics, they judge phenomena solely from surface appearances and note only the subjective sensations of worshippers. This da’as (simplistic) approach is not tolerated in science, and it should not receive serious credence in Halacha. Such judgments are pseudo-statements, lacking sophistication about depth relationships and meanings. (1973 shiur (lecture) at RCA convention; The Rav: Thinking Aloud – Sefer Bamidbar, pp. 127-148. And see here.)

The Moetzes Gedolei Ha-Torah, the Council of Torah Sages of Agudath Israel of America, very recently issued a public statement that Open Orthodoxy is not a legitimate form of Orthodox Judaism. The basis for this statement and what precipitated it have been demonstrated incountless ways, but the underlying ideology of Open Orthodoxy, as manifest in the “anti-RCA” protestations and rants (sorry — just being honest) by Open Orthodox leadership and laity, evinces an attitude toward Halacha that is one of personal agenda, control and demands, rather than submission.

This attitude betrays much of the outcry on the part of Open Orthodoxy toward the RCA resolution and other issues in the Orthodox world. Here are a few of the many recent expressions of Open Orthodox protest that exhibit this sentiment:

For me, sacred continuity is about calling in all of the men and women who have been alienated from Torah and from the Divine because they have not found communities that reflect their values or that welcome them in their fullness and contradictions. For me, sacred continuity is about creating a space, through our recently founded Yeshivat Kol Isha, where women grappling with intimate details of halakha around sexuality and menstruation can do that with other women and find a place for their own voice and reality to be reflected in halakhic discourse… (Rabba Melanie Landau, Yeshivat Maharat ‘15)

There are teachings from our tradition that are evil (genocides, stoning children, abuse of women, oppression of homosexuals, Judeo-centric imperialism, etc.) We have a moral responsibility to name it and own it! The nuanced teachings were progressive in their time but our sacred responsibility is now to reinterpret them (as our sages have always done) to be moral lights in our time. Within Jewish law, the principles, not the rules, are eternal. We are a people faithful to both roots and progress. (Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz, YCT ’10)

Yes, people should be free to ordain women, to disregard the rulings of preeminent halachic authorities in favor of populist “Facebook/Twitter” and petition approaches to halachic decision-making, to define Judaism as they see fit, and to demand that Halacha conform to their subjective agendas and needs — so long as they please finally drop the word “Orthodox”.

A neutral psychologist refutes the psychological claims - that are the basis of Tamar Epstein's heter - with her diary entries

Guest post from Mr. Ploni a psychologist who has contributed many valuable comments to this blog but wishes to remain anonymous.

Rav Feldman Shlit"a quotes the "רופא מומחה":

הרופא הפסיכיאטור המומחה קבע את דעתו על פי עובדות ששמע מהאשה על התנהגותו 

של הבעל, כמו: כעסו, קמצנותו, פחדיו, דאגותיו, וכו' שכולם מוכיחים שיש לו 

המחלות הנ"ל שהן, לדעת הרופא, בלתי הפיכות

Really?

Let's check Tamar's diary entry...

About כעס / anger:

Related OPPOSITE traits are mentioned: "Why I love/like Aharon/what I respect: -respect. Shmiras halashon [wide ranging term meaning does not speak badly about others in any way or curse] ... loving/sweet/ affectionate/gentle to me"

The closest negative trait similar to anger mentioned: "not mature about certain things when upset/feels pressured into doing things he immature - sulks, passive-aggressive, self-absorbed". And "read paper, leave table, doesn't say goodbye etc." Is sulking when feeling pressured & not saying goodbye considered כעס???

About קמצנות / stinginess:

Actually, the OPPOSITE of stinginess is explicitly is mentioned: ""Why I love/like Aharon/what I respect: ... lets me spend money - equal share .... -doesn't pressure me to go back to work". Does that sound like a stingy person???

About דאגותיו-פחדיו / unwarranted fears: Nothing there. Actually, that's a mistake. Stress IS mentioned, but the one with the דאגה, פחד is Tamar, and not Aaron: "Me - anxious/stressed when with family when socializing with others - worry about how Aharon feels and will react"

I don't think this is a minor point. The fact that none of the core issues that the רופא מומחה based his diagnosis on where present at the time that Tamar wrote her diary entry gives great credence to what Rav Feldman suspects, that:

הרבה מהסיפורים שמהם מוכיח הרופא שהבעל אינו נורמלי עד כדי שאין לו רפואה קרו לאחרי הנישואין. מהיכי תיתי שהמחלה, אם היתה, לא התפתחה אחרי הקידושין, שאז כמובן אין כאן ביטול קידושין?

If so, there is obviously no basis for מקח טעות.

Even more importantly, this may show that Aaron is THE VICTIM here, and the anger, etc. that Tamar reported was not the CAUSE, but rather the EFFECT, which RESULTED from TRAUMA that Aaron suffered from being bullied & denigrated.

If my hypothesis is true, Hallachically, Aaron was therefore a) פטור even if did AFTERWARDS say things he wasn't supposed to (as per the סמ"ע חו"מ ס' רכ"ח ס"ק ד), and b) surely not obligated to grant a get (as per the the רמ"א אהע"ז ס' קנ"ד ס"ג).

This is the only logical way I can understand the discrepancy between the journal entry and the עובדות ששמע מהאשה.

Aaron's correct diagnosis might then be:

Complex post-traumatic stress disorder

(C-PTSD) also known as developmental trauma disorder (DTD) or complex trauma is a psychological injury that results from protracted exposure to prolonged social and/or interpersonal trauma in the context of  dependence, captivity or entrapment (a situation lacking a viable escape).

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn:

Do you think this discrepancy should be brought to the attention of the רבנים הגאונים שליט"א?

Rav Leib Landesman's psak against Tamar Epstein's heter to remarry without a Get

פסק דין בעניין קידושי טעות by Rav Leib Landesman

Chayei Sarah; When to feed pets by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Rivkah Imeinu gave Eliezer to drink BEFORE the camels. We know, asks the Sefer Chasidim, that we are obligated to feed our animals before we sit down to eat ourselves....

The Sefer Chasidim rules, that in giving to drink, humans are first. This is brought down in the Magen Avroham....

The Chasam Sofer and Reb Moshe Feinstein z'l have a different explanation.....  

For questions or comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

In light of the Tamar Epstein scandal: A call to action

Guest Post

Klal Yisroel is beset by numerous challenges both from internal and external factors. The external issues are to some degree dealt with by the leadership of the Agudath Israel organization. We are terribly lacking in leadership, or rather a leadership apparatus to deal with the internal burning issues of our day.

Every Rov, kehila and beis din is its own little island. For example when the “Grama Switch” was proposed there was no central authority to judge it. It took some time for this that and the other rov to get together and declare it chilul Shabbos and forbid it. Supposedly the concept is now finished, finally.

More recently the tzibbur was confronted with an issue of epic proportions, namely the remarriage of one Tamar Epstein without a Get.

The Rov who performed her second marriage is of impeccable credentials, a world renowned moreh horaah who has been relied upon by all rabbonim in many matters for decades.

I would not impugn upon this Rov’s credibility or integrity, yet when we are faced by a “agunah” who made herself into a cause celebrity as one, suddenly declaring herself “unchained” it is a grave matter to have this seemingly resolved without a written hetter from gedolei haposkim explaining what made this marriage invalid and invalidated.

Such is an issue of great precedent setting public policy importance and the lack of a vehicle for the rabbonim to receive and share information, formulate and provide public guidance is a void of epic proportions which must be filled.

The need in today’s day and age for an organization such as the Agudas Harabonim to be functional or to be replaced cannot be overstated.

Speak to your Rov, Rosh Yeshiva and Rebbe ask them to please join together with likeminded leaders of Bnei Torah for the sake of Hashem and the Torah.

With regard to Gittin and Kidushin, the shenanigans played by Toanim in Beis Din and general rabbinic protocols and standards the situation is totally out of control, everyone and anyone can do as they please and are answerable to no one. It’s time to end the madness. Nobody can say that they operate in a bubble, Rabonim do not necessarily need to be answerable to the masses, yet to their peers they need to be. Today’s situation allows for anyone to declare themselves a peer to whomever they please leaving us with this circus like situation.

Signed with the hope for a better tomorrow.

Echad mibnei hayeshivos

Many websites that promote unscientific views about vaccinations use pseudoscience and misinformation to spread the idea that vaccines are dangerous

Huffington Post

Many websites that promote unscientific views about vaccinations use pseudoscience and misinformation to spread the idea that vaccines are dangerous, according to a new study.

For example, of the nearly 500 anti-vaccination websites examined in the study, nearly two-thirds claimed that vaccines cause autism, the researchers found. However, multiple studies have shown that there is no link between vaccines and autism.

About two-thirds of the websites used information that they represented as scientific evidence, but in fact was not, to support their claims that vaccines are dangerous, and about one-third used people's anecdotes to reinforce those claims, the scientists found.

Some websites also cited actual peer-reviewed studies as their sources of information, but they misinterpreted and misrepresented the findings of these studies.

"So the science itself was strong, but the way it was being interpreted was not very accurate," said study author Meghan Moran, an associate professor in Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School's Department of Health, Behavior and Society. "It was being distorted to support an anti-vaccine agenda." [5 Dangerous Vaccination Myths][...]

The biggest takeaway from the findings is that researchers and health officials "need to communicate to the vaccine-hesitant parent in a way that resonates with them and is sensitive to their concerns," Moran said in a statement. "In our review, we saw communication for things we consider healthy, such as breast-feeding, eating organic, the types of behavior public health officials want to encourage. I think we can leverage these good things and reframe our communication in a way that makes sense to those parents resisting vaccines for their children."[...]

Moetzes Gedolei HaTorah: Open Orthodoxy is not Orthodox Judaism