Dutch Jewish teacher arrested in Tel Aviv on Amsterdam sex charges

ynet   Teacher from ultra-Orthodox school left the Netherlands for Israel after 16-year-old students tells parents teacher sexually assaulted him; Israeli courts to now deliberate on his extradition to Holland.

A Dutch Jewish teacher suspected of sexually abusing children has been arrested in Tel Aviv earlier this week, two years after the Netherlands asked for his extradition, the Dutch Telegraaf reported on Thursday.  

The teacher, 28, has been in Israel for three years. He was arrested on Monday and was brought to a remand extension hearing at the Jerusalem District Court the next day.  

According to reports in the Netherlands, the suspect was born to a Reformist family in Amsterdam and became more observant a few years ago. He attended a yeshiva in Jerusalem, while teaching at a private school of languages in central Israel. In 2010, the suspect returned to the Netherlands, where he started working at the Cheider School in Amsterdam - a prestigious ultra-Orthodox institution that includes a kindergarten, a primary school and a high school. 

In 2012, a 16-year-old student told his parents that the teacher sexually assaulted him in a side room. The parents turned to the school but were ignored, so they turned to the media. The school - where 200 children aged 2-18 study - said it "held a clarification conversation with the teacher."

That year, other students at the school, younger than 10, started suffering symptoms of anxiety, and a doctor who examined them raised the suspicion that they were also sexually abused. It was only at that point that a police investigation was launched.
The reports, published in the popular newspaper Telegraaf, embarrassed many in the Jewish community in the Netherlands and led to great public pressure for the school's administration to join the police complaint. [...]

Shabbos; When Is Burning In Gehenom, Good?! by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Guest Post

The famous Dyybuk- in the times of the Chofetz Chaim- said, she was not protected from her trauma even on Shabbos, because during her lifetime she didn't keep Shabbos....

Indeed, the Chidah in his Sefer Chomas Anuch in the beginning of Parshas Vayakel brings from The Zohar in Parashas Terumah, this same concept- if you didn't keep Shabbos, Shabbos doesn't protect you...

However, the Gemarah in Sanhedrin (65b) brings a story that even a gentile, who certainly never kept Shabbos in his life, is protected from Shabbos...

For questions and comments please email salmahshleima@gmail.com




https://youtu.be/Ho-RhOHACTA

Vayakhel 76 - The Copper Mirrors and Photos of your Children by Allan Katz

Guest Post Allan Katz

Which task was more difficult - the creation of the world or the building of the mishkan –tabernacle? The Talmud –Ketuvot 5 makes a comparison between them and says that the deeds of the righteous, the building of thae mishkan are greater than the act of creation of the world which was done with one hand ,"my hand established the land "- "אף ידי יסדה ארץ but the building of the tabernacle , was the work of both hands –" "מקדש ה′ כוננו ידיך- your hands have established God's sanctuary .The source of holiness and purity is from Hashem-God , but its manifestation in this world depends of acts of the people and especially righteous ones who themselves are described as the sanctuary of Hashem. The task of building the mishkan and its keilim-utensils was given to Betzalel. It involved more than just producing and manufacturing the utensils. The primary task was to use חכמה ומלכת מחשבת , wisdom, thoughtful design and craft. It meant injecting all the utensils- keilim with holiness and purity – kedushah and ta'harah so that they would be the conduit to channel God's abundance in the form of wisdom, Torah, prosperity, forgiveness and atonement to the people. Betzalel would thus relate to the utensils on the deepest level of understanding and intentions in order to inject them with kedusha - holiness.

With regard to the Kiyor- washbasin –laver , it is written that Betzalel made the copper washbasin and its copper base out of the mirrors of the dedicated women [ha-tzove'ot] who congregated at the entrance of the Communion Tent. (Ex. 38:8). The Midrash commentary gives the background. Moses rejected these copper mirrors because mirrors, although they are important for the husband –wife relationship, they are perceived as objects that promote lust, vanity and self-centeredness. God told Moses to accept them, because they are more precious than anything else because through them a new generation, legions of people was born. The women, by their faith, courage and ingenuity, secured Jewish survival. The Egyptians not only had a policy of infanticide towards the boys, but decided to destroy desire with back-breaking slave labor and interrupt family life by preventing men from returning home and being with their wives. The righteous women used the mirrors to make themselves up and adorn themselves. They then went into the fields to tend to their weary and tired husbands and seduce them using the mirrors. Together they would look at each other in the mirror and the wife would say to the husband ' I am more beautiful than you ' and this would arouse the husband and lead to intimacy.

The women's dedication to their husbands and the future of the nation of Israel , injected kedusha- holiness and sanctity into the mirrors which made them fitting for the kiyor – the washbasin. The water from the kiyor was used by the Priests-Kohanim to sanctify and purify their hands and feet as they entered the Mishkan to do the daily service, a reminder that kedusha depends on a person's intentions, actions, thoughts and motivations. The water from the' kiyor ' was also used in the process to restore marital harmony and trust when a wife was suspected of being unfaithful and misusing her passions.

The Midrash said that the mirrors were not only used to help the woman put on their makeup, but she also wanted her husband to look in the mirror and see how beautiful she was. The question is asked, why didn't the wife simply say to the husband,' look at me '– without using the mirror - , 'I am more beautiful than you'. The answer is that people tend to 'project' their feelings and state of mind onto the people they are interacting with. This is even more so when people are stressed out, over-worked and depressed. They don't see the other person and here ' a wife ' as an independent entity outside of themselves. They see them as extensions of themselves. It takes a photograph or seeing the person in a mirror in order to see the other person as somebody separate from them and see their real beauty, depth and many levels.

As parents and educators we need to regularly look at photos of children. We, especially parents see children as extensions of ourselves or there just to do what they are told, be compliant and don't make trouble. When children are viewed only in terms of meeting our expectations, then any inappropriate behavior is seen as an attempt to avoid tasks, attention seeking or attempting to get something. But if we see kids as separate from ourselves, as independent entities with a neshama and soul, we can start to see the world through their eyes and acknowledge that they too have legitimate concerns, perspectives and needs. We all seek attention, avoid tasks that we don't find appealing or try to get what we want. The difference is that some kids don't have the skills to do that in an appropriate way. When there are unsolved problems or infractions we may try to motivate a kid to behave better using rewards, punishments, consequences or non-verbal rewards like praise. When we do this, we first are only concerned about our unmet expectations of kids and getting them to be compliant. We totally ignore their concerns or any of their unmet needs. But if we use collaborative problem solving we first explore their concerns and help them put them on the table so they feel understood, we then share our concerns and then try to solve the problem by finding a mutually satisfying solution that addresses both concerns.

When it comes to learning, academics or even sports we focus on achievement and kids meeting our goals and expectations. We are not concerned whether the kids enjoy or can relate to what they are learning and doing and whether they find the activity interesting and enjoyable. We are only concerned with success and failure. We need to take heed of the words of Jerome Bruner – those kids should experience success and failure only as information so we can help them focus on what they are doing, connect to what they are doing and not focus on how they are doing. It is only when we see them as separate entities with their own wishes and personalities that we can respect their autonomy and respects their choices.

Sanctity and kedushah means that we relate to people and the world with depth and on a higher level. Just as we try to elevate the material world and inject spirituality with our thoughts, intentions, and motives and how we use the world also trying to benefit others and the community, we need to relate to people and especially our spouses, children and students, not as projections of ourselves but as separate people with souls. We need to connect to children etc on this higher level, and connect to their souls so we can help them to help themselves to elevate themselves and the world around them.

Trial of Ezra Sheinberg - former rosh yeshiva - starts in Tzfas

Haaretz   The trial of Rabbi Ezra Sheinberg, the former head of the Orot Ha'ari Yeshiva in Safed, charged with perpetrating sex crimes against 12 women seeking his treatment and advice, began on Wednesday behind closed doors at the Nazareth District Court.

Sheinberg made no comment before the session began.

Dozens of Yeshiva students demonstrated outside in solidarity with the victims. Also protesting where women from a Galilee rape crisis counseling center. Demonstrators carried signs that read:

'We believe you and salute you, stand behind you,' 'You aren't alone, the Orot Ha'ari community condemns Ezra Sheinberg and his actions.'

Rabbi Avraham Engel, of the Orot Ha'ari Yeshiva said their group had come all the way from Safed "to support and encourage the brave women standing at the frontlines of justice."

A former student remarked: 'For the first time, he is silent, and we are smiling." [...]

Kiddushei Ta'us: Rav Moshe Feinstein is not the only source

The recurrent claims that Rav Moshe Feinstein was the only posek who invalidated a marriage based on the concept of kiddushei ta'us  - is not true. Here are some quotes from Rav Bleich's review article on kiddushei ta'us which appeared in Tradition Fall 1998

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

2. IDENTIFICATION OF SALIENT DEFECTS

"Go and examine the Talmud, Rambam and Tur Shulhan Arukh. In no place will you find actual annulment of a marriage because of a defect." Thus writes R. Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, of blessed memory, in his Peirushei Ivra, no.L, sec. 44. Indeed, as recorded in Shulhan Arukh, Even ha-Ezer 39:5, unless made the subject of an express stipulation, presence of a serious physical defect in the bride renders the validity of the marriage doubtful but does not render the marriage voidable as a matter of halakhic certainty. The specific physical defects that give rise to a state of uncertainty with regard to the existence of valid marriage are spelled out in detail. […]

The condition of eilonut is the only defect for which Tosafot adduce talmudic proof establishing that the defect serves as grounds for nullifying a marriage as a matter of certainty rather than merely rendering the marriage a marriage of questionable or doubtful validity. Whether there are additional defects of a like nature is a matter of considerable question and controversy. The enumerated defects that result in a marriage that is doubtfully or possibly voidable are the defects that disqualify a priest from participating in the sacrificial service as well as other defects related to feminine pulchritude and attractiveness. None of those defects seriously impairs functionality. Hence it is quite conceivable that, even if the defect had been disclosed, the groom would have accepted the woman as a marriage partner. In contradistinction, physical incapacity to bear children goes to the crux of the marital relationship and, accordingly, it is presumed that everyone recognizes that the generality of men would not knowingly enter into marriage with an eilonit." […]

Thus, for example, Rabbenu Shimshon and Or Zaru.'a differ with regard to whether blindness is to be equated with eilonut as constituting such a defect. Similarly, Bet ha-Levi, II, no. 4, sec. 2, expresses uncertainty with regard to whether epilepsy is a defect comparable to eilonut.

Among latter-day decisors, R. Chaim Ozer Grodzinski, Teshuv Ahi'ezer, I, no. 27, sec. 3, rules that, in the presence of an undisclose "grave defect," no get is required. This is also the position of R. Most Feinstein, Iggerot Mosheh, I, nos. 79 and 80; Even ha-Ezer, III, nos. 41 46, 48 and 49; and Even ha-Ezer, IV, nos. 13, sec. 4, 83 and 113. Ahi'ezer infers from terminology employed by Rambam, Hilkhot Ishi 7:8, that this was Rambam's view as well. Rambam speaks of "doubtful marriage" in cases in which the defect is one which "disqualifies" woman, i.e., a defect that significantly detracts from feminine attractiveness. The inference to be drawn is that more serious defects affectin functionality result in unequivocal grounds for annulment of the marriage. Rivash and Maharit, cited by Shitah Mekubezet, Ketubot 721 maintain that a marriage in which the bride has not disclosed a salient defect is of questionable validity only if the defect is "minor," i.e essentially aesthetic in nature, but that the marriage is unquestionably voidable if there exists an undisclosed "major" defect, e.g., epilepsy or mental illness, unless the marriage has been consummated after the groom becomes aware of the defect. In the latter case there is a presumption that, in order to avoid the transgression associated with fornication, the sexual act is performed with the intent thereby to contract marriage. The position of Rivash and Maharit is accepted, inter alia, b Teshuvot Malbushei Yom Tov, no. 4, and Avnei Nezer, Even ha-Ezer, Il no. 176. Similarly, Bet ha-Levi, III, no. 4, states that he is "inclined n rule" that no get is necessary in the presence of "a grave defect" in the bride. On the other hand, R. Jacob Reischer, Tesbuvot Shevut Ta'akov, I, no. 101, rules that even in the presence of "grave defects" the validity of the marriage remains doubtful and a get is required. Rabbi Henkin, Peirushei Ivra, no. 1, sec. 47, comments that "since from the days of the Talmud [until the present] we have not heard and we have not known of annulment of a marriage, particularly after nisu)in [i.e., consummation], because of a defect, we therefore know that all [defects] are included in [the] doubt [ regarding the validity of a marriage]." […]

שו"ת יביע אומר חלק ח - אבן העזר סימן ג

טז) ולכאורה יש לצרף לסניף להקל בנידון דידן, כי הנה הבעל (הראשון) היה פושע והובא בפלילים בפני השלטונות בשווייץ, ונגזר עליו להכלא בבית הסוהר, וזאת עוד לפני נישואיו לאשה הזאת, ואכן כשנתפס והוסגר לידי השלטונות הוכנס לבית הסוהר, והאשה טוענת כל הזמן שאילו ידעה שהאיש עבריין ונידון בפלילים לא היתה נישאת אליו כלל, ולדבריה הוא מקח טעות בנישואיה, (ומטעם זה קיבלה הודעת ביטול נישואין אזרחיים מהשלטונות, משום מקח טעות), והן אמת שכמה אחרונים כתבו שבנמצאו בו מומים לא אמרינן דהוי מקח טעות, להתירה בלא גט, משום דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, וכמו שכתב הבית שמואל (סימן קנד סק"ט). ע"ש. מכל מקום עינא דשפיר חזי בשו"ת בית אב שביעאי (סימן כח ענף ג') שהביא דברי דודו הגאון רבי מאיר מארים זצ"ל, מחבר ספרי ניר על הירושלמי, שסובר דהא דקיימא לן דהיכא דקדשה סתם וכנסה סתם הוי קידושי ספק, שייך גם בנמצאו בו מומים, ואף שהגאון רבי יצחק אלחנן בשו"ת עין יצחק (חלק אבן העזר סימן לד אות ד') הביא דבריו, וחלק עליו, משום דדוקא בנמצאו בה מומין אמרינן דהוי קידושי ספק, אבל בנמצאו בו מומין אמרינן איתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, אולם באמת אין זה כלל מוסכם לעולם, תדע שהרי המרדכי פרק המדיר (סימן רא) הביא בשם הראבי"ה, שאף על פי שנכפה לגבי אשה מום הוא, אין מזה ראיה להחשיבו מום לגבי איש, דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה, ומשום הכי לא קתני נכפה בהדי מומי האיש, ואין בידינו לכפותו בלא ראיה ברורה. ואילו בתשובת הרא"ש (כלל מב) פשיטא ליה שגם באיש הוי מום, ואפילו בנכפה שקבוע לו זמן ידוע, וברוב הימים הוא בריא, וכמו שכתב הכנסת הגדולה (סימן קיז) בשם המהרח"ש בתשובה (סימן לג), וכתב שם שאין ספיקו של רבינו יואל מוציא מידי ודאו של הרא"ש, ולא משגחינן בסברא דאיתתא בכל דהו ניחא לה. ואטו כל המומים בחדא מחתא מחתינהו, ועוד אטו כל הנשים שוות בזה, והסברא נותנת שאילו ידעה האשה שהאיש מוטל עליו עונש לפי החוק מפני שהוא גנב ושודד, והוא איש אשר אין אמון בו, וכל אמרי פיו ישאם רוח ויקחם הבל, לא היתה נישאת לו, שגם אם עתה יאהבנה מי יודע מה יהיה לימים יוצרו, הלא יתכן שיתן עינו באחרת וישליכנה מלפניו, ולכן לא יצאנו מידי ספק קידושין, ובהצטרף ספק נוסף הוה ליה ספק ספיקא ולקולא וכו'. ע"כ. ומאחר עלות שעיקר הקידושין בנידון דידן יש לפקפק מאד בהם, כיון שנעשו על ידי ייחוד עד פסול מן התורה, בצירוף עד אחר, וקיימא לן נמצא אחד מהם קרוב או פסול עדותם בטלה, יש מקום לצרף לסניף סברא הנ"ל דהוי כמקח טעות בנישואין. ועיין בשו"ת הרדב"ז חלק ד' (סימן נז), בדין אשה שהיתה בחזקת נשואה שנים רבות, ובאו עדים והעידו שהקידושין לא היו כדין, לפי שנתקדשה בעודה קטנה שלא לדעת אביה, והתירוה להנשא לאחר בלא גט, ולאחר שנים שחיתה עם בעלה השני, באו עדים אחרים והעידו שהקידושין הראשונים היו קידושין גמורים לדעת אביה, והשיב, שאין כאן חזקת אשת איש לבעלה הראשון, דתרי ותרי נינהו והוה ליה ספיקא דרבנן, דמדאורייתא היא בחזקת פנויה כיון דאשעת קידושין הם מעידים, וחזקה הבאה מכח עדות לא עדיפא מהעדות עצמה, וכיון שבטלה העדות בטלה חזקת נישואיה הראשונים. וכן כתב הריטב"א בשם התוספות. וכן העלה הרמב"ן בעובדא דינאי (קידושין סו א). וכן כתבו שם הר"ן ובעל המאורות. וכל שכן שהחזקה לא היתה אלא מחמת פרסום בטעות, לפיכך לא תצא מבעלה השני. ע"כ. וכן כתב בשו"ת מהר"ם אל אשקר (סימן טז). וכן העלה הגאון מהר"ש חקאן הלוי, הובא בכנסת הגדולה (סימן מז הגהות הטור ס"ק יא). ע"ש. ואפילו לדעת המהר"י בי רב (סימן נו) דסבירא ליה שהאשה הנ"ל היא בחזקת אשת איש, בנדון דידן שעצם הקידושין מפוקפקים כנ"ל, בודאי דמוקמינן לה בחזקת פנויה. והן אמת שבספיקא דדינא לדעת הרבה פוסקים לא שייך להעמיד הדבר על החזקה דמעיקרא, לפי דברי התוספות בבא בתרא (לב ב) אליבא דרשב"ם. וכמ"ש במשנה למלך (פרק ז' מהלכות שכירות הלכה ב'). וכן כתב הכנסת הגדולה יורה דעה (סימן יח הגהות הטור סק"ג, וסימן כח הגהות הטור סק"ג), דבספיקא דדינא לא אמרינן אוקמה אחזקה קמייתא, ורק בספק במציאות מוקמינן לה אחזקה. וכן כתב המשנה למלך (פרק ב' מהלכות טומאת צרעת הלכה א'). וכ"כ בשו"ת משאת בנימין (סי' נ). ובפמ"ג יו"ד (שפ"ד ר"ס יח). ובספר שב שמעתתא (שמעתא א פרק כב). ובשו"ת רעק"א (סי' לז). ע"ש. אולם מדברי הר"ן פרק קמא דקידושין (ה ב) גבי נתן הוא ואמרה היא, מבואר שגם בספיקא דדינא שפיר מוקמינן לה אחזקה קמייתא, וכמו שכתב הפרי חדש (סימן קי, כללי ספק ספיקא סק"א). וכן במשנה למלך (בפרק ו' מהלכות עדות הלכה ז'), ובשו"ת חקרי לב חלק א' מיורה דעה (סימן קיא). וכן העיר בשו"ת הגאון רבי עקיבא איגר חלק א' (סימן לז) מדברי הר"ן הנ"ל. ועיין עוד בספר נחל איתן (פרק ג' מהלכות אישות הלכה ב', דף נא ע"א), ובחשק שלמה (קידושין ה ב). ע"ש. ובשו"ת עונג יום טוב (סימן קמב) כתב, שהרמב"ם סובר דמהני חזקה קמייתא אף בספיקא דדינא. ע"ש. וכן כתב בשו"ת תורת חסד מלובלין (חלק אורח חיים סימן טו אות ד'). ע"ש. וכן המהרי"ט בתשובה (חלק אבן העזר סימן יח) סבירא ליה דמהניא חזקה אף בספיקא דדינא. ועיין עוד בספר התומים (סי' לד סוף ס"ק כז). ובשו"ת ברית אברהם (חלק אבן העזר סימן עא אות ב'), ובמחנה אפרים (נדרים סימן יב), ובקונטרס הספקות (כלל ד' סימן ה', וכלל ה' סימן ו'). ובשו"ת עונג יום טוב (ס"ס ע). ועיין עוד במה שכתבנו בשו"ת יביע אומר חלק ג' (חלק יורה דעה סימן יב אות ח'). ע"ש. ואם כן הכא נמי יש לנו לומר דאוקמה בחזקת פנויה, אף על פי שהוא ספיקא דדינא. והן אמת שהתוספות כתובות (כג א) כתבו, גבי עד אומר נתקדשה ועד אומר לא נתקדשה, הרי זו לא תנשא ואם נישאת לא תצא. וכתבו התוספות, דהא דלא שרינן לה להנשא לכתחלה, משום חזקת פנויה, משום דמיירי שזרק לה קידושיה ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו, דבכהאי גוונא אין לנו לומר אוקמה אחזקה להתירה לכתחלה. וכן פסק מרן השלחן ערוך (סימן מז סעיף ג'). ואם כן הכא נמי יש לומר שמכיון שקיבלה על כל פנים קידושין, איתרע לה חזקת פנויה. אולם הנה מבואר בתשובת מהר"ם בר ברוך שבתשובות מיימוני (הלכות אישות סימן א'), דאין הכי נמי דמדאורייתא מוקמינן לה בחזקת פנויה, אלא דמשום דאיכא עד אחד האומר קרוב לה, גזרו בה חכמים וכו'. ע"ש. וכן כתב הר"ן (כתובות כג א), שכיון שיש שני עדים בזריקת הקידושין, ועבידי אינשי דטעו בקרוב לו או בקרוב לה, משום הכי אמרינן דמדרבנן מיהא לא תנשא, דחיישינן שמא בשעת זריקת הקידושין שניהם ראו שהיו קרובים לה, וזה העד טועה עתה בזה. ע"ש. ולפי זה בנידון דידן שיש ריעותא גדולה בקידושין עצמם, לא שייך טעם זה, ומוקמינן לה אחזקת פנויה. ועיין בשו"ת עין יצחק (חלק אבן העזר ריש סימן נט). ע"ש. וכל שכן שבנידון דידן רבו הספקות להקל, שבודאי יש להעמיד האשה בחזקת פנויה, ולהתיר הבנים הנולדים לה מבעלה השני לבוא בקהל ה'. והנלע"ד כתבתי.

R Yitzchok Frankfurter The hatred of Jews towards their fellow Jews on the Internet is comparable to the hatred of the Holocaust

update: Commentary added

The following is an excerpt from an editorial in Ami Magazine  November 11, 2015 praising the Lubavitcher Rebbe and his shluchim and contrasting it to the evils of the Internet

Light Multiplied

 [...] The Rebbe's mission, motivated by love, to search out every Jew after the Holocaust has been contrasted to those darkest day's in our history, when every Jew was searched out in hatred. These days, it might also be compared tס the darkness and loathing that permeate the blogosphere, where people often devour their fellow Jews alive, and all standards of humanity and decency are suspended in order to score a cheap point. 

While lashon hara awareness has increased in the last few decades, largely through the influence of the writings of the Chofetz Chaim, scrupulosity in the observance of these laws has decreased dramatically with the rise of the Internet. In the virtual world, self discipline and impulse control are considered failings, and slandering a fellow Jew a virtue. 

How can we neutralize the darkness that dwells in our computers and defiles our smartphones? The answer is, once again, ahavas Yisrael. As the Alter Rebbe taught, the only way to overcome the yetzer hara's incitement to indulge in slander and defame a fellow Jew is through love. 

"Therefore, my beloved and dear ones, I beg again and again that each of you exert himself with all his heart and soul to firmly implant in his heart a love for his fellow. In the words of [Zechariah 8: 17]: 'Let none of you consider in your heart what is evil for his fellow.' Moreover, [such a consideration} should· never arise in one's heart [in the first place]; and if it does, one should push it away 'as smoke is driven away'-as if it were an actual idolatrous thought. For to speak evil [ of another] is as grave [a sin] as idolatry and incest and bloodshed (Arachin 15b). And if  this be so with speech, [then surely thinking evil about another is even worse], for all the wise of heart are aware of the greater impact [on the soul] of thought over speech" (Tanya, Part 4, Epistle 22). 

The Rebbe's everlasting message, not only for his shluchim but for all of klal Yisrael, is not to fight the darkness overtly, but to make negativity disappear by illuminating the world with rays of light and love. 

Anyone who has ever witnessed a shaliach in action can appreciate the depth and wisdom of this transformation approach. •

================== Commentary by Anonyomous===========

I remember R' Frankfurter's editorial from Ami Magazine's November 11, 2015 issue. I was astounded by his cheap rhetorical tricks; the ridiculous misuse of ‘foil’, something that makes another seem better by contrast, and the egregious use of a particular hyperbolized analogy that would be just cause for the mainstream American Jewish Thought Police, the Marvin Heirs, the Abe Foxmans, etc. to throw him to the dogs. I thought of sending a 'letter to the editor', but I figured that would have the same effect as writing to the White House complaining about the Secretary of State storing Top Secret emails on an unsecured server in her bathroom.

However, in retrospect, I now realize that the editorial was the MSOM's (Mainstream Orthodox Media) opening salvo to protect the Rabbinical Establishment regarding the 'get' fiasco'. TE's so called remarriage occurred on September 24th.  By means of the Blogosphere, the Holy War against this chillul Hashem began and picked up steam during October. Frankfurter’s attack on the Blogosphere was published November, 11. In a moment of desperation and rage, Frankfurter committed what amounts to a capital crime in the eyes of the American Jewish Thought Police; he compared the Blogosphere to the Holocaust. In 2003, Abe Foxman and his ADL went nuclear when PETA equated meat-eating with the Holocaust. Using precious yiddishe gelt, Foxman launched a National campaign against PETA; imagine his reaction to a frumer yid comparing something as trivial as the Blogosphere to the Holocaust! Could be that the Thought Police gave Frankfurter a pass as they are fighting the same enemy and seem to share the same goal, ‘get on demand’. Thus, besides escaping media excoriation, Frankfurter was spared from the penitential tour, a reeducation Holocaust experience at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles with Rabbi Marvin Heir. At a past fundraising dinner for ‘Tolerance’ Center, Heir honored the Dali Luma (sic), a Buddhist baal avoda zara who operates a center for Jewish youth adjacent to his ashram in India. This Luma, this destroyer of Jewish souls, is perhaps the worst mazik of the generation.

It is ironic that Frankfurter uses the Chabad in general and the Lubavitcher Rebbe, zt’l, in particular, as ‘foils’ in an attempt to highlight the Blogosphere’s evilness. He could not have picked more unsuited ‘foils’. The Rebbe, an engineer by trade, embraced technology, especially communications. In 1960, the New York radio station (WEVD) began broadcasting a weekly Tanya shiur. The Rebbe was the chief editor of the show. The Rebbe was immediately attacked, accused of contaminating the holy words of the Torah. He responded by restating a fundamental principle of Jewish faith: everything was created by G‑d to serve His purpose in creation. Man, who has free choice, might make negative use of a creation, but its intrinsic function remains the revelation of the divine wisdom and goodness.

In 1988, before the Internet was popularized, a Lubavitcher Chassid, Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Kazen, began disseminating Chabad Chassidus on Fidonet, an online discussion network. The Rebbe encouraged him in his activities. Several years later, before establishing a Chabad presence on the Internet, Rabbi Kazen asked for the Rebbe’s permission. The Rebbe said to absolutely pursue it. The Internet is an integral part of Chabad. In way-off places, the Shluchim are able to educate their young children via virtual classrooms, and access materials to enhance their kiruv work. Thus, Frankfurter uses the most Internet-friendly and controversial group in Orthodox Judaism in an attempt to posel the Blogosphere in order to protect the Kaminetskys and the Agudah. 

And Now Brought To You By Feminist Rabbis: Jewish MGTOWs

And Now Brought To You By Feminist Rabbis: Jewish MGTOWs

By Akiva Wasserstein

As an avid reader of the Daas Torah and Torah-Halacha blogs, I wish to thank both Rabbis' Eidensohn for being some of the only voices of reason in a Torah world seemingly gone mad. The churban of Jewish homes and it's associated collateral damage of children at risk resulting from the malfeasance of some of our haughty askanim, new-age therapists, and greedy rabbis is reaching crisis mode. Some examples of the consequences of this insanity are to be found in the pages of this blog, where we have become acquainted with some really tragic cases of needless human suffering. But unfortunately the fallout spreads wider and deeper. 

Like other men I first discovered MGTOW, an acronym for the grass roots movement known as Men Going Their Own Way, by coming across the unofficial and informal version of it first. In my case, this was through conversations I'd had with divorced fathers who quietly and without fanfare informed me that they hadn't had the stomach to try their hand at marriage again. One of these men, who was older and had married off his children, assured me that he keeps busy by working during the day and studying the Talmud at night. Although I was taken aback, I made no real attempt to convince him or any of his comrades that they were making a mistake, even though I realized that what these people were saying seemed to contradict normative Jewish teaching. 

Today I understand that what they were trying to tell me is that they are MGTOWs. These are men who have eschewed committed relationships with women, especially in regards to having children with them. They were going their own way and doing their own thing. What they probably hadn't realized was that many other men were doing the exact same thing, but this time under a Madison Avenue style banner and catchphrase.

I found myself at once heartened and saddened by this phenomenon. MGTOW crystalizes in one word (if indeed it is one) everything I had always imagined a fraternity of disenfranchised men would be like. Yet it pains me to think that such a time-honored institution as marriage might soon be relegated to the museum of human sociology. I think it would be worthwhile to analyze what some of the factors for the MGTOW experience coming into existence might be in order to try and avert what might already have become the new issue to be discussed at the Aguda Convention, and an apalling new chapter in the shidduch crisis. 

Who exactly has decided to ride this MGTOW train out of the station of conventional thought? On one side it is populated by males who were scarred and burned by a ruthless and gynocentric Family Court system that has parted them from their homes, their family, and their hard-earned money. On the other hand, we are finding younger men who have seen and heard all of the horror stories from their married friends and relatives across the aisle, and who have decided instead to opt out. With somber statistics in hand declaring marriage in the 21st century to have a success rate of slightly more than 50%, these men are coming to the realization that the act of giving a ring under the chuppah has about the same chances of a positive outcome as a ring toss at the carnival. And what's at stake here is not a stuffed toy, but rather the forfeiture of his very home, where the only place he seems to have any use anymore is over the mantlepiece as a stuffed animal.

Where is the communal outrage against a system that regularly dispenses this type of injustice towards many a hapless male who wanted nothing more than to make his marriage work, only to find himself one day on the outside looking in on a world he once knew but no longer recognizes? How could things have been allowed to deteriorate this way with nary any effort being made to stop the freefall that leads us to the suffering of all these victims, the men, women, and especially the children? How did we even get to this point?

The Torah commandment to be fruitful and multiply and the Mishnaic dictum exhorting an 18 year old to enter the chuppah is so well known to religious Jews that no alternative course of action could possibly be imagined, barring of course the usual excuses for delaying tying the knot until whatever scholastic or financial goals are met. But let us not forget that marriage is in reality also a multi-billion dollar business, involving a myriad of interests such as jewelers, caterers, florists, photographers, musicians, and even matchmakers, online or otherwise. The skeptic may wish to contemplate for a moment the sheer irony of more and more wedding halls being located these days in 'industrial zones.' 

And if the marriage then fails? Now it's time for another multi-billion dollar industry known as family law, with an endless supply of divorce lawyers and judges with a vested interest in propagating as much misery as possible. The recent documentary "Divorce Corp" has done a great job of exposing much of the corruption in this field, but it has only scratched the surface. There are energy companies who can sell twice the amount of heating oil to a family living in two homes, and there's extra gasoline to be dispensed for driving cars on long distance visitations. Each divided family even consumes double the amount of wine for kiddush and havdala, amounting to an extra 50 bottles or so per year.

Another obvious area of culpability would be the government. In generations past, parliaments favored strong families, which have in turn been the foundation of strong societies. It is only recently that the paradigm has shifted in favor of single-parent households that are headed overwhelmingly by women. The reason for this is because in the past, the male was the dominant figure in the home and in the workplace. His existence was vitally important socially and economically, so obviously no law would have been passed that might cause his disaffection. The 20th century however has seen upheavals in the social order, specifically women's suffrage, the Great Society, and women joining the workforce, that have caused priorities to change. Now we are witness to the vicious cycle of what happens when government has access to a new stream of revenue by taxing women's income, using the money to invest in social programs, and in turn securing the votes of the recipients of all that largesse, keeping the same politicians in power to continue the cycle. It becomes clear to see how the male has now fallen out of favor. And with no man around the house, the children fall into dysfunction as well, necessitating more government programs, while also providing a steady supply of marginalized youth to populate the military, or whom otherwise might totally submit to authority. In light of all of the above, is it any wonder that marriages are allowed to go bad in such numbers?

Enter the MGTOW man. He has found a strange solution for a society that has estranged HIM. He knows that marriage and divorce totally favor the woman, while providing scant benefit for the man. But in the Torah community, where having children and teaching them is a positive commandment, and where a man nonetheless is strongly discouraged from living alone, MGTOW is simply not an option. 

This is why there needs to be the greatest of outcries against this atrocious situation. It is sadly not difficult at all to imagine how a young man who has done his homework nowadays could come to the conclusion that he must think twice before taking the leap of marriage. If an investor would find himself facing a proposal with a 50% chance of losing everything, and deciding therefore to balk at that risky venture, would we be so insolent as to question his judgement? How much more so should we be understanding of someone who has decided to be exceedingly careful with his very own life and sanity! It goes without saying that this intolerable situation needs be changed. Fortunately for all of us we have some very good people who have been doing much to finally start turning the tide on our corrupt leaders. By staying the course now we may finally get the chance to eradicate once and for all this deviant feminist agenda from our midst so that the holy institution of marriage can once again take it's rightful place in our lives.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: News and Views from Rav Gestetner

Rabbi Gestener's latest shiur on the situation:

951-262-3634 press # 355

Mom who abducted daughter to pay 1 million shekels

Arutz 7

A woman who abducted her daughter and disappeared for four years will pay the girl's father 650,000 shekels in damages in addition to extra compensation, a Tel Aviv court ruled.

The father is a citizen of France and Israel, and the mother was born in Turkey to a rich and influential family, reported News1. Their daughter was born in the year 2000 and the family resided in Israel. In 2004, the mother and daughter visited Turkey but never returned.

In court proceedings that reached the Supreme Court in Israel as well as the International Court for Human Rights, it was decided that the girl must be returned to Israel. The mother and daughter were located in 2008, and the girl was returned to Israel. The mother had been disguised as a Muslim. [...]

The judge determined that the mother must pay most of the expenses the father incurred in searching for his daughter as well as legal expenses, and must pay another 340,000 shekels to compensate the father for loss of earnings during the time he searched for his daughter.

In addition, she must pay the father 650,000 shekels to compensate for his pain and suffering during the years he searched for the daughter.[...]

Daas Torah vs local authority - a letter from Rav Chaim Ozer explaining when local authority is preferred

The following appeared in an article "Daas Torah revisited" by R Yitzchok Blau in Tradition Winter 2015. It is referring to a letter of Rav Chaim Ozer which is found in his collected letters vol 1 page 242-243

In late nineteenth century Germany, the secession controversy broke out in the Orthodox community. For the first time, Orthodox Jewry had the opportunity to secede from the larger Jewish community and maintain an independent financial and political relationship with the German government. R. Shimshon Rafael Hirsch favored secession whereas R. Yitshak Dov Bamberger opposed it. When the question reappeared in 1912, a German Jew wrote to R. Hayyim Ozer Grodzinski, the illustrious Rav of Vilna, for guidance. R Hayyim Ozer responded with a very significant letter and it is worthwhile to cite an extended passage : 

In truth, the foundation of a solution regarding this important question is, in my opinion, different from all rulings about issur va-hetter or questions of agunot, whose roots are clear in shas and poskim, and the respondent must focus on clarifying the rishonim and ahroinim, decide based on the canons of legal decision making, and find a solution to the complicated question. This is not the case regarding the solution to this question. Its unique foundation is based in a comprehensive understanding and a clear outlook, in order to recognize the correct way to make a fence and stand in the breach to strengthen religion. There is no doubt in my mind that the righteous rabbis, R. S. R Hirsch and R. Y. D. Bamberger were not arguing about Jewish law. Rather, their world outlook was different, each one according to his holy way for the sake of heaven. This outlook is especially illuminated for a sage who knows the area, who lives in that location and community, and who knows the traits or the people of the community and their particulars, is attached to them in all the binds that tie, oversees their needs, he has the discerning eye to properly investigate religious questions, and he can see the impact for the next generation. Therefore, it would seem, they did not ask for a decision on this serious questions from the great lights of the exile, the genonim R. M. L. Malbim, R. Yisrael Salanter, R. Y. L. Diskin, or R. Y. E. Spektor, may their memory be for a blessing, because this decision cannot be reached through Talmudic sources or the posekim but only based on quality reasoning and the correct and illuminating outlook. Those working from a distance cannot become involved and they did not find outlook strong enough to make a determination. They relied on the rabbis who dwell in that place.

Brooklyn rabbi charged with teen sex assault gets 60 days in jail; DA ripped for offering light plea deal

NY Daily News   A Brooklyn rabbi charged with sexually abusing four teenage boys in a hotel was sentenced to just 60 days in jail and six years of probation.

Yoel Malik, 33, a member of the Satmar Hasidic sect, was given the generous plea deal after the victims were extremely reluctant to testify publicly, according to a law enforcement source familiar with the case.

In 2013, Malik was charged with 28 criminal counts and shamelessly blamed his underage victims for trying to seduce him, police sources said. [...]

Washington area rabbis have shunned Aharon Friedman - against the halacha - but with encouragement of R Herschel Schacter

R Shmuel Herzfeld

Aharon Friedman is still being shunned by the Silver Spring community - by both rabbis and congregants as a Get refuser. Their distortion and ignorance of elementary halacha - or perhaps their preference for secular values over Torah - is problematic for a number of reason 

1) Tamar claims she doesn't need a Get because she says she was never married to Aharon. None the less the "wise" rabbis and their "wiser" congregants will not let him attend shul until he gives her a get! 2) The Baltimore Beis din has long stated that Aharon Friedman is not obligated to give his wife a Get - and they are the only beis din authorized to deal with the case because of a signed agreement from Aharon and Tamar. 3) While the Washington Beis Din originally demanded that Aharon give a Get - they rescinded that demand 6 years ago with the acknowledgement that they had no jurisdiction in the case which was already being dealt with by the Baltimore Beis Din.

Despite this explicit ruling in 2010 that only the Baltimore Beis Din is authorized to make ruling regarding this case - the ban has continued and is force today.

An example of a rabbi incorrectly claiming that halacha requires banning Aharon - despite the clear ruling of both the Washington and the Baltimore Beis Din  - is found in this post from 3 years ago of the view of Rabbi Shmuel Herzfeld. He and Rav Schacter clearly hold that a man can be pressured to give a Get - on the demand of the wife - even without going to beis din - and even if the beis din says otherwise!

http://daattorah.blogspot.co.il/2013/02/r-herzfelds-heter-to-publicly-embarrass.html
[...]

So from the perspective of Jewish law the matter is clear: If a person is not giving his wife a Get and is using it as leverage, one can (and depending on the circumstances, should) embarrass him publicly even to the point of threatening his livelihood.  

While this is never a pleasant thing to do; it is also not pleasant to live with the pain of not being able to remarry or go out on a date by virtue of the fact that you are being chained to a recalcitrant spouse.

Although, the halacha is clear I still felt trepidation in this area.  Perhaps I was misreading the sources or perhaps there were other factors that I did not consider.  So I personally discussed this case with Rav Hershel Schachter, a leading authority at Yeshiva University, who is directly involved in this exact case.  He encouraged me to continue on this path.  I specifically asked Rav Schachter if I should let all of Aharon’s colleagues on the Hill know about his behavior and he said, “yes.”

Subsequent to our conversation, Rav Schachter wrote a psak on this matter where he wrote: “Limnoa mei-habaal she-lo ye-agen et ishto—inyan zeh eino tzarikh pesak beit din, upeshita desaggi behoraat chacham, to work to prevent the husband from chaining his wife—this matter does not require a ruling from a Beit Din, and it is obvious that all that is required is a ruling from a single Torah scholar.”  He further noted that the great Rabbi Akiva Eiger also ruled that if we know a man is planning on making his wife an Agunah we can even throw him into jail on the Shabbat itself.  So in this case specifically it is appropriate to convince Aharon to give a Get.

The Halakhah on this matter is clear: Aharon should give the Get immediately and not hold it as leverage.  Until he does that it is permissible to embarrass him into doing so.

Of course, at the end of the day it is not just Aharon who is embarrassed publicly.  The New York Times article did not just embarrass Aharon, it also embarrassed the Torah; it is a Chilul Hashem to see such behavior being conducted under the auspices of the Torah.

But that is not the fault of the New York Times.  That is the fault of our own community for not being strong enough in this area.  

Aharon still has many supporters who are encouraging him in his recalcitrance either explicitly or implicitly through smoke screens and redirected, irrelevant complaints about his ex-wife.  And so Tamar Epstein’s status as an Agunah continues, and for that we should all be embarrassed.

 [...]

Ki Sisa; What Moshe Rabbeinu And Betzalel Were Thinking by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

 

 

The Gemarah in Brochos (55a) and Rashi (Shemos 38:22) tell us, that Betzalel was told by Moshe Rebbeinu to first make the Aron and "keilim" and then the Mishkon, ....

However, Hashem had instructed Moshe to make the Mishkon FIRST!! Betzalel thought the Mishkon should be made first, and Moshe Rabbeinu agreed- that that was in fact the order that Hashem said is should be....

Why did Moshe Rabbeinu think that the Aron must be made first, and how do we understand Betzalel's reasoning..

For questions and comments, please email salmahshleima@gmail.com

https://youtu.be/U3PfUOneJmU

Why do good people do evil things in divorce cases? A lesson from Shlomo HaMelech

Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,

In several divorce case that you have covered, there has been some serious unbecoming behavior that some of the divorcing parties have perpetrated. To those of us who have had interactions with these people, it often does not make any sense. People who generally act with kindness, consideration and fairness act in self-centered and mean-spirited ways. How does this come about? How do good people go so wrong? The Gemara relates, that the stories mentioned in Tanach are instructive to each and every generation. While there were many more stories and prophecies that were not recorded in Tanach, only those that are relevant to all generation were transcribed. We may find an interesting answer there.

King Solomon was only twelve years old when he succeeded his father as the king of Israel. At that point, Hashem appeared to him in a dream and gave him a blank check offer. Hashem told Shlomo Hamelech that he can have whatever he would like. With awareness and recognition of his youthfulness and inexperience, Shlomo asked Hashem to provide him with the wisdom to be able to understand how to properly lead the Jewish people. More importantly, he asked for the wisdom to be able to properly differentiate between right and wrong. Being that Shlomo’s request was completely selfless, Hashem told Shlomo that He will give him the wisdom to be the wisest man ever – in addition to other gifts.

Immediately thereafter, the young Shlomo was put to the test. The Radak explains that the case that he was asked to rule upon was to show all of us his great wisdom. Indeed, the whole nation was watching him and eyeing this case to see Shlomo’s ability to rule. There were two single mothers who shared a room. Both had given birth to baby boys. However, unfortunately, during the third night one baby died beside her mother. Sad, upset, hurt and distraught at having lost her precious child, she quietly switched her dead child with her roommate’s sleeping child. She intended to raise this child as her own. She was going to shower the baby with love, warmth and motherly care. When her roommate awoke to take care of her baby, she saw the other mother's dead child beside her. She immediately realized that this was not her child! Her child was alive and well at the other side of the room. Naturally, a custody battle ensued. They took their battle to King Solomon. The nation would now witness Shlomo Hamelech’s – the wisest of all men – wisdom.

Listening to both mothers, Shlomo wisely declared that “We must split it evenly. Cut up both children – the one who and the one was alive! - in half!” It worked! The mother of the dead child agreed to cut both children up. However, the mother of the living child begged Shlomo to keep her child alive. She would rather her child live, even with a woman who had kidnapped him, rather than her child being killed. It now became obvious who the rightful mother was. It was self-understood to all observers that the real mother was the one who wanted to keep her child alive.

The Novie relates that now, through his ruse and ruling, the whole nation saw Shlomo Hamelech’s amazing wisdom.

In one of his famously inspiring shmoozen, Rav Chaim Shmulevitz asked: “Shlomo! How did you know?! How did you know that this woman would be willing to cause the murder of this child – a child she wanted to raise as her own? Just because she was willing to kidnap this child should not mean that she was willing to murder the child! Had your ruse not worked, you would have looked childish and foolish.”

It is apparent that the reasoning in this case is one that is applicable to people in all generations – otherwise it would not have been transcribed.

Obviously, Shlomo Hamelech in his great wisdom understood with absolute certainty, that once a person is willing to wrongfully take a child away from their parent – even if it is to satisfy a deep emotional hurt – at that point, they have become willing to murder the child. Indeed, depriving a child from their parent is emotional destruction of the child.

Yes, there may be organizations, movements and good friends who may encourage divorcing parents to use their children as leverage, as a weapon of war and deny their children their other parent. It may be bring about interesting results.The downside is, that at that point they have become willing to completely destroy their child. They have chosen the other objective over the well-being of their child. This may very well be the underlying cause of how good people fall into behaving so wrongly in divorces.