No, Science Is Not Faith-Based

Forbes

Even the most well-learned scientist, working within the frameworks of the most robustly tested and verified theories, can never be certain that the next experiment or measurement will continue to provide the results that we expect. Last month, when the LIGO collaboration announced the direct detection of gravitational waves for the first time, it confirmed a new aspect of Einstein’s general relativity: one that had been predicted and whose consequences had been seen indirectly — through the decay of neutron star orbits — but one that we couldn’t be sure about until we validated it directly. But writing in the Wall Street Journal, Matt Emerson makes the erroneous claim that science is faith-based, too. Here’s the crux of his argument, followed by why it falls apart.

He quotes physicist Carlo Rovelli, who wrote that the discovery of gravitational waves was the realization of a “dream based on faith in reason: that the logical deductions of Einstein and his mathematics would be reliable.” He quotes Paul Davies, who wrote, “Just because the sun has risen every day of your life, there is no guarantee that it will therefore rise tomorrow. The belief that it will—that there are indeed dependable regularities of nature—is an act of faith, but one which is indispensable to the progress of science.” And then, based on the use of the word “faith” in these two sentences, he makes the following leap:

Recognizing the existence of this kind of faith is an important step in bridging the artificial divide between science and religion, a divide that is taken for granted in schools, the media and in the culture. People often assume that science is the realm of certainty and verifiability, while religion is the place of reasonless belief. [...] The fundamental choice is not whether humans will have faith, but rather what the objects of their faith will be, and how far and into what dimensions this faith will extend.

To be willing to make this statement is to deliberately misunderstand what the enterprise of science is, and how it fundamentally differs from any theological conclusion one could ever reach.

Faith, by definition, is the belief in something despite insufficient knowledge to be certain of its veracity. Some beliefs require small leaps of faith (the example that the Sun will rise tomorrow), as the body of evidence supporting that prediction is overwhelming, while others – the existence of dark matter, the inflationary origin of our Universe, or the possibility of room-temperature superconductivity — may still be likely, but may also reasonably turn out to be wrongheaded. Yet in every case, there are two key components that make the prediction scientific:

The prediction, or the belief that the outcome can be accurately predicted, is predicated on the existence of quality evidence.

As the evidence changes — as we obtain more, newer and better evidence — and as the full suite of evidence expands, our predictions, postdictions and entire conceptions of the Universe change along with it.

There is no such thing as a good scientist who isn’t willing to both base their scientific belief on the full suite of evidence available, nor is there such a thing as a good scientist who won’t revise their beliefs in the face of new evidence.

We may have had faith that Einstein’s predictions, and the existence of gravitational waves, would turn out to be correct, and that LIGO would make the greatest scientific discovery of the 21st century so far. But if it hadn’t been true — if advanced LIGO had reached design sensitivity and seen nothing for years, or if it had seen something that conflicted with Einstein’s theory — that faith would be instantaneously discarded, and replaced by something even better: a quest to discover how to extend and supersede Einstein’s greatest accomplishment to account for the new evidence. [...]

A Tribute to Rav Shlomo Elyashiv, Author of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: On his Ninetieth Yahrzeit

Seforim Blog    by Joey Rosenfeld

R. Shlomo Elyashiv (1841-1926) known as the Leshem after his vast body-of-work Leshem Shevo v-Achloma was a Lithuanian Kabbalist known for his adherence to the school of Kabbalat Ha-Gra.[10] Described as the fourth stage, or peh revieeh within the chain of talmidei ha-Gra, the Leshem formed a system in which the apparent contradictions between the Vilna Gaon and the Arizal were reconciled through a unique form of Kabbalistic analytics. R. Avraham Yitzhak ha-Kohen Kook, close friend and student of the Leshem described R. Elyashiv as applying Talmudic analytics (pilpul) onto the Lurianic corpus thereby clarifying and reconciling the various contradictions and textual ambiguities.[11] With an exhaustive knowledge of the gamut of Jewish esoterica- from the philosophic rationality of the rishonim to the complex intricacies of R. Chaim de La Rosa’s Torat Chachom[12]- the Leshem can be described as one of the most comprehensive as well as creative Kabbalistic thinkers of the late 19^th and early 20^th century. Born in Zagory, a small city in northern Lithuania, R. Elyashiv was raised studying Talmud with his father R. Chaim Chaikl Elyashiv until leaving home to study under the tutelage of R. Gershon Tanchum of Minsk where he became known for his Talmudic expertise. After his marriage to the daughter of R. Dovid Fein the Leshem went on to study at the Telshe yeshiva where his intellect and vast memory earned him the appellation of Telsher illui. While in Telshe the Leshem was introduced to chochmat ha-nistar by his teacher R. Yosef Reissen who then served as the Rav of Telshe. While learning in Telshe, R. Elyashiv became familiar with the fundamental texts of Jewish mysticism, learning the Pardes Rimonim of R. Moshe Cordevero as well as the Vilna Gaon’s commentaries on Sefer Yetzirah, Safra D’Tzniyuta and the Tikkunei Zohar. Only afterwards did the Leshem begin studying the system of the Arizal and it’s commentaries. R. Aryeh Levin who served as R. Elyashiv’s assistant after the latter’s move to Jerusalem includes within the curriculum the texts of R. Moshe Chaim Luzzato as well; however the distinctive relationship between R. Shlomo Elyashiv and the Ramchal’s school of Lurianic mysticism will be discussed below. After leaving Telshe, the Leshem settled in Shavel, Lithuania where he began to write what would become his vast oeuvre known as Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. In 1922, through the help of Rav Avraham Isaac haKohen Kook and Rav Yitzhak haLevi Herzog,[13] R. Shlomo Elyashiv moved to Jerusalem with his family where he eventually passed away on the 27th of Adar in 1926. While never accepting upon himself any form of communal leadership, the Leshem became known as the preeminent scholar of Kabbalah, through his written works, glosses, vast reaching editorial skills and the various rabbinic personalities with whom he studied and taught.[14] [...]

R. Moshe Shapiro: The Popularization of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma

This phenomenon in which the texts of the Leshem undergo the “occasional deletion of a passage so as not to include matters of concealment (nistarot)”[61] for the sake of making them “equal to every searching ben-torah” has taken place primarily within the school of R. Moshe Shapiro and his students. Viewed by many within the Haredi world as the preeminent baal-machshava, R. Shapiro is purported to see in the Leshem- who he describes as “a giant, discordant with the nature of our lowly generation, sent to enlighten our eyes and enable us to grasp a miniscule taste of the depths of torah”[62]- a paradigm of authentic hashkafat ha-torah. In a letter reprinted in Shaarei Leshem[63] at the behest of the Leshem’s grandson R. Yosef Shalom Elyashiv, R. Shapiro explains the rational for publishing a collection of texts taken out of context as follows:

            “Many have been asking and searching, who will give us faithful waters to drink from the well of living water, the seforim of our master (the Leshem) that were given over closed (chatumim), and they are yearning to find an opening, one that does not engage the depth of the sugyot in the Zohar and writings of the Arizal. And it is known that many of the drushim open gates in the knowledge of God, the fundamentals of faith and yearning for redemption that each Jew is commanded to know, and in our generation in which the wicked ones surround us and things are “cheapened in the eyes of men” and anything that stands at the height of the world is cheapened and lowered to the dust, it appears to be a “time to act for God” (ait laasot la-Hashem), to open an opening for the masses to the enlightened writings that cleanse the eyes and heal the spirit, that they may swim in them so that knowledge be spread; and I know personally how wondrous the affect these writings have on those who learn them, and even on those who taste from the edge of their sweetness, their eyes shall be enlightened.”

R. Shapiro’s logic is clear, due to the spiritual dereliction of the generation two difficulties arise in learning Leshem Shevo v-Achloma properly. The first is practical in the sense that many have expressed interest in the philosophical aspects of the Leshem’s system without a prior knowledge of the Kabbalistic subject matter. Secondly, the spiritual climate in which the holy is “cheapened in the eyes of men” demands a paradoxical transgressive act for the sake of upholding the law, an “ait laasot la-Hashem.” By utilizing the rabbinic notion of ait laasot R. Shapiro enables himself to support the simplification of the Leshem’s work while simultaneously maintaining the non-ideality of such an undertaking. R. Shapiro’s ambivalence between the ideal sanctity of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma as a unique contribution to the Lurianic system and the real inability of many within the Haredi yeshiva world to grasp the complex subject matter is relieved through the utilization of ait laasot, a temporary disavowal in which the laws governing the revelation of Kabbalistic texts are held in abeyance. [...]

R. Moshe Schatz: Leshem Shevo v-Achloma as Foundational Text

Within the Hasidic world of contemporary Kabbalah study, Rabbi Yitzchak Meir Morgenstern - rosh yeshiva of Yeshivat Torat Chochom - has consistently incorporated the works of the Leshem into his dynamic synthesis wherein the works of the Arizal, Rashash, Baal Shem tov and Gra are grafted together creating new constellations of thinkers who coalesce in a textual matrix described as “secret of secrets” (razin di-razin)[65]. It is R. Morgenstern’s teacher however, who serves as a significant scholar of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma. R. Moshe Schatz- born and raised in Brooklyn- sits in his cramped study in the Jerusalem neighborhood of Givat Shaul teaching the Leshem’s system to a wide range of students, many of whom have studied the Lurianic system extensively only to reach a point of confusion. In a process akin to Derridian deconstruction, R. Schatz leads his students through a process of deliberate unlearning in which the previously held assumptions regarding the Lurianic system are shed.[66] Once the student has moved beyond the preconceived notions that have compounded their confusion, R. Schatz begins to slowly work from the bottom up, elucidating and clarifying the fundamental ideas that the Kabbalistic system is built upon. For R. Schatz the Lurianic system - as refracted through the teachings of Rashash - is a complex structure in which specific concepts undergo a process of repetition through reconfiguration. Utilizing the Lurianic depiction of Partzufim, the works of the Arizal, Rashash, Baal Shem Tov, and the Vilna Gaon coalesce into a unified whole that is greater than the sum of its parts. Building a gestalt of sod, R. Schatz simultaneously reveals the unity that rests beneath the disparate manifestations of Kabbalah throughout history as he removes the commonly held assumptions of machloket that have marked the interpretive approaches of many scholars.  [...]

R. Meir Triebitz: The Leshem as Authentic Mitnaged

Another current teacher of Leshem Shevo v-Achloma within the Haredi yeshiva world is R. Meir Triebitz who serves as a maggid shiur at Yeshivat Machon Shlomo, a baal-teshuva institute in Jerusalem. R. Triebitz, who also serves as a posek for his community, completed his dissertation in mathematical physics at Princeton University before moving to Jerusalem to teach. Aside from the Talmudic course he teaches, R. Triebitz delivers classes on Leshem Shevo v-Achloma: Hakdamot u-Shearim as well as pertinent source materials from the Leshem’s writings. R. Triebitz’s approach is noteworthy in that he maintains that the Leshem’s system is one in which the Kabbalistic system is purified from any pantheistic and acosmic notions. As an adherent to the Vilna Gaon’s interpretation of Kabbalah, R. Triebitz views the Leshem as the last authentic Mitnagdic thinker, fighting both the Hasidic predilection towards pantheism as well as R. Chaim Volozhiner’s revisionism of the Gra’s radical materialism. In supporting his thesis, R. Triebitz highlights the Leshem’s usage of Maimonides’s Guide as well as his literalist approach to the Lurianic system as signifying his attempt to bridge the widening gap separating mysticism and rationality. Of note is R. Triebitz’s usage of philosophical texts- from Kant to Kripke – in an effort to contextualize the evolution of Kabbalistic theology. [...]

Child abuse? Blocking contact with a child's kidnapper - the only mother she has known 18 years?

AP   A woman in South Africa has been found guilty of kidnapping a newborn nearly two decades ago from a hospital and raising the girl as her own, just a short distance from where her devastated real parents were living.

Zephany Nurse, now 18, was reunited last year with her biological parents, Morne and Celeste Nurse, after the couple's second daughter befriended a girl at school who looked remarkably like her.

After a police investigation and DNA tests, it turned out they were sisters and that the new friend was the Nurse's missing child. [...]

After she was found, the girl chose to continue using the name given to her by the kidnapper.[...]

Celeste Nurse was dozing in her hospital bed when three day-old Zephany was kidnapped by a woman disguised as a nurse back in 1997. [...]

The girl was not in court and is taking final exams to graduate from high school.

The much publicised reunion between the girl and her real parents has been tense, with South African media reporting infighting among the Nurse family.

The girl, struggling to adjust to her newfound family, has pleaded for her privacy, and in a statement appeared to give the woman who raised her the benefit of doubt.

"Don't you think for once that that is my mother? Whether it is true or not is not for you to toy with," she wrote, addressing journalists. "Take all the professionalism away and think how it would be if this was you and your family, and your reputation gets swept through the disgusting gutters of filth."

After her arrest, the court ruled that the kidnapper could not make contact with the girl.

Television images showed the man who raised the girl as his own weeping outside the courtroom. The defendant testified that her husband never knew that the child was not his.

The defendant, 51, had pleaded not guilty to all three charges. During the trial she testified that she adopted the child.

"I didn't know the baby was stolen," the woman testified, according to the African News Agency.

Pekudei; Not All "Baddim" Are Created Equal by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Guest post by Rabbi Shlomo Pollak

Over and over again, we find a difference between the Baddim that were made to carry the Aron and the Mizbeach HaChitzon (in the courtyard), vs. the Baddim that were made for the Shulchon and Mizbeach HaPinimi....

In Parshas Pekudei, the Baddim of the Shulchon and Mizbeach HaPinimi, are NOT EVEN MENTIONED....only the Baddim of the Aron and the Mizbeach HaChitzon are discussed....

In Parshas Terumah and Tetzaveh, the Torah tells us to make the Baddim, and in the case of the Arom and Mizbeach HaChitzon- to insert them, but not by the other two...

In Parshas VaYakheil, when they made the Baddim, we see that difference again...

In Bamidbar, the Baal HaTurrim points out, that by the Aron and Mizbeach HaChitzon it says  "ושמו בדיו" whereas the other two it says "ושמו את בדיו".......

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

https://youtu.be/IyAzvdnbDKA

Child Abuse: A case illustrating the difficulties of reporting - what would you have done?

Guest post regarding actual events.

Some of the details have been changed to protect privacy.

The Situation

A male teacher is in charge of a small class of girls at an Orthodox school. The girls are aged seven and eight years old.

The girls have been told not to touch the teacher. With one exception, the girls observe this rule.

One girl has a habit of sticking her arm out when she passes by the teacher and brushing him with her hand. She does this, apparently, unconsciously. When it is brought to her attention, she apologizes.

The words of the apology indicate that the girl touched the teacher accidentally. This would seem to be the case, since it generally happens when she is not facing the teacher directly. Yet the girl's tone tells a different story. She seems to only become aware that she touched the teacher after she touches him.

That is, only when she is notified of what happened does she realize what she did and recognize that she touched the teacher.

The teacher gently rebukes the girl numerous times. He devises games for the class where they practice consciously keeping their distance from the teacher. Still, this girl repeats her behavior of touching the teacher, and sometimes at the most inopportune times, such as in the presence of her patents.

Warning: the following is a graphic description.

Even though the girl touches the teacher without looking at him, invariably her hand strokes his crotch. As stated, this can happen even when there are other people, including her parents, around; and even with a large space to play. The girl drifts over to the teacher and without warning extends her arm.

The girl's reaction is also invariable: "Sorry," without the least hint of having intended to break a rule.

Analysis

(1) The girl likes the teacher. The girl enjoys being near the teacher. Her arm moving towards him is not intentional, and given the height difference, the contact point is just incidental.

(2) Same as (1), with the added understanding that pre-pubescent children can exhibit some overt sexual behavior. This can be intuitive, picked up from observing adults, or some combination.

(3) The girl is being sexually abused. Aa male in her life is engaging her in some activity that involves the girl touching him. The girl is non-verbally communicating this to the teacher when she touches him.

The Question

What should the teacher do? The context is that the only men having regular contact with the girl are her father and her teacher.

An independent investigation will almost certainly center on the father, and may ultimately boomerang on the teacher.

The teacher is under stress because of the constant vigilance required for him to be aware of the location of the girl in the class at all times. Furthermore, he finds himself lashing out at her because she often manages to touch him when his guard is down.

The teacher is reluctant to broach the subject with the parents because if there is ongoing abuse, one or both of them may be involved, or aware of the abuse. For example, the girl's mother may tolerate the father abusing her daughter, since to deal with it could lead to the breakup of the family. The mother does not have a paying job and is dependent on her husband for financial support.

Mendel Epstein Torture for Get Gang - voluntary surrender extension

Case 3:14-cr-00287-FLW Document 433 Filed 03/08/16 Page 1 of 2 PagelD: 8491 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Cr. No. 14-287 (FLW)

ORDER MODIFYING VOLUNTARY SURRENDER DATE

 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff,

v

MENDEL EPSTEIN, JAY GOLDSTEIN, DAVID ARYEH EPSTEIN, and BINYAMIN STIMLER,

Defendants. :

THIS MATTER having been opened to the Court by Defendants Rabbi Mendel Epstein and Rabbi Binyamin Stimler (collectively, Defendants); on separate motions for bail pending appeal; it appearing that the current motions are pending before this Court, and that Defendants' voluntary surrender date is set for March 14, 2015; it appearing that because the Court requires sufficient time to review and rule upon Defendants' motions, it is prudent to modify Defendants' voluntary surrender date until the motions are resolved; accordingly, 

IT IS on this gth day of March, 2016,

ORDERED that the voluntary surrender date, currently set for March 14, 2016, of Rabbi Mendel Epstein and Rabbi Binyamin Stimler is extended until further notice from this Court. 

/s/ Freda L. Wolfson

Freda L. Wolfson

United States District Judge

Child Abuse Allegations Plague the Hasidic Community

Update :Added Interview with Newsweek editor

Update: Comment by anonymous frum insider 

There are as many irritants in the article as in the few comments thus far.  There is a way to deal with it, and much progress has been made.  To deny that is to lie.  There’s much more to go.  However, the Newsweek and other media reports are certainly not useful.  They accomplish nothing more than the fanatic “advocates” did – chilul Hashem, destroying lives, and nothing more.  The basis for these media reports is greatly flawed.  Their primary sources are the several who have escaped the frum community, and are engaged in the mission of creating as much destruction as possible.  These detestable creatures have long abandoned their victimhood, and have enlisted with the enemies of Klal Yisroel.  I have lost my ability to have any rachmonus on them.  If they want to help, then join the campaigns to bring about greater awareness, prevention programs, school and institutional policies that accomplish something.  The media stuff is miyus, as it has no role whatsoever in protecting a single child.

Meanwhile, a simple observation.  We are both familiar with defense mechanisms.  I make observations all the time of new mechanisms that are just that, but masquerade as something else.  The Agudah position, which we know to be fundamentally flawed, is not really a policy at all.  It is a simple effort to cover-up the cover-ups.  They cannot do different, because that would be self-incrimination.

update: added this interview with Newsweek edit



Newsweek    [...] While there is no evidence that child abuse is any more likely to occur in ultra-Orthodox schools than in public or secular institutions, stories like Reizes’s—an alleged abuser sheltered and victims unwilling to talk for fear of losing the only way of life they know—are common in the Hasidic school system. The many former students, advocates, sociologists, social workers and survivors interviewed by Newsweek, along with recordings, documents, public filings and personal emails that Newsweek obtained, place the blame on a confluence of factors: widespread sexual repression, a strong resistance to the secular world, and, most important, a power structure designed to keep people from speaking up about abuse. [...]

In the ultra-Orthodox world, sexuality is simultaneously denied and monitored to the point of obsession. Starting in childhood, boys and girls are separated; the opposite gender remains a mystery until it’s time to marry, usually in an arranged pairing. Boys are taught to avoid looking at girls, while girls are taught that they are a source of sex and transgression, say former members of the Haredi, or ultra-Orthodox Jewish, community.

If children aren’t taught by their parents and teachers about appropriate sexual behavior, they have no way to sense when touching turns into something that is wrong. “You don’t even know what your body is,” says Lynn Davidman, a professor of sociology and religious studies at the University of Kansas who grew up in a religious Jewish family. “And you are not supposed to touch or know, and then all of a sudden you are introduced to forbidden knowledge in a most abusive way.” The abused have no way to make sense of what’s going on, to stop it or to tell anybody about it. [...]

“I think there is little doubt that the extent and seriousness of abuse in society at large was underappreciated for decades until relatively recently,” says Rabbi Avi Shafran, director of public affairs for Agudath Israel of America, an umbrella organization that provides leadership to Haredi communities. “Unfortunately, the Orthodox community was likewise unaware of the degree and severity of the problem in its own midst. That, though, has changed.”[...]

Today, in North American Haredi communities, there is debate over how the mesirah prohibition should be applied. In 2011, the Crown Heights Beis Din (the rabbinical court that handles internal religious disputes) ruled that mesirah “do[es] not apply in cases where there is evidence of abuse” and that “one is forbidden to remain silent in such situations.” And earlier this year, 107 Hasidic rabbis signed a kol koreh, or “public pronouncement,” stating that there is a religious obligation to notify secular law enforcement when it knows of child abuse.

However, “knowing” is a murky term here. In 2012, Rabbi Chaim Dovid Zwiebel, executive vice president of Agudath Israel of America, said mesirah meant community members should turn to rabbinical authorities to “ascertain that the suspicion meets a certain threshold of credibility” before reporting child abuse to the authorities. Scroll through the comments section of any of the muckraking websites that track abuses in the Haredi world—Unorthodox-Jew, FailedMessiah.com—and it quickly becomes clear how deferential this community is to religious authority. At the bottom of news coverage of sexual abuse trials are seething comments claiming the reporters are acting above their pay grade. “Stop speaking loshon harah and chillul Hashem ”—evil speech and the desecration of God’s name—“and let the Rabbis sort it out,” they have written.

The problem, though, is that this puts the decision to report on individuals who are usually not qualified to recognize signs of abuse—and who, many say, have a vested interest in keeping secular eyes away. Furthermore, while New York state law says all school officials are required to disclose any child abuse, physical or sexual, they see or hear about to Child Protective Services—religious clergy are not. And when school officials are also religious officials—all yeshiva teachers are rabbis—there are dangerous legal loopholes. [...]

A mother claims her husband has abused their daughter- but has no proof

Reshet TV

מה עושה אישה חרדית שמגלה שבעלה תוקף מינית את בנותיה, כשבקהילה הסגורה שלה לא נהוג לפנות למשטרה? הרבנים בשכונה הירושלמית סוגרים את הדברים בחדרי חדרים, ועל הדרך מאשימים את האישה: "את צריכה לתת לו יותר"

למי אמורה לפנות אישה חרדית כשהיא מגלה שבעלה פוגע מינית בבנותיה? מי אחראי לכך שהבעל ייענש בחומרה על מעשיו? בקהילה החרדית מעדיפים שלא לפנות למשטרה, ולסגור את הפרשיות הרחק מחדרי החקירות ובתי המשפט.

סיפורה של האם הצעירה מתחיל בשכונת מאה שערים בירושלים. לאחר שעזבה את העולם החילוני, חזרה בתשובה והצטרפה לחסידות ברסלב. תוך שלוש פגישות שודכה לבעלה, ובתוך שלוש שנים הפכה לאימא לשלוש בנות.

"הילדה הגדולה הייתה בת 6, היא הייתה ילדה שמחה, פתוחה ומשוחררת. היא הייתה מספרת לי הכול. ופתאום היא התחילה לא לאכול ולהיות חיוורת וסגורה", מספרת האם על הרגע שבו התחילה להרגיש שמשהו אינו כשורה. "היא אמרה לי שהוא הוריד לה את החצאית, נשק לה בפה, נגע לה במקומות. אני חשבתי שזה חלום, לא ידעתי מה לחשוב באותו הרגע".

אישה חרדית בקהילה הסגורה - פונה תחילה אל הרב. הראשון שאליו הגיעה בדרך הייסורים שהיא עומדת לעבור הוא רב הקהילה שלה. "שאלתי את הרב מה הוא מציע לעשות, הוא אמר לי - 'אני חושב שאת צריכה להיות אתו יותר, לתת לו יותר, אולי הוא יירגע ולא ייגע בבנות'". זאת לא תהיה הפעם האחרונה בה היא תשמע שהאשמה מוטלת עלייה.

הרב השני אליו פנתה הוא הרב יונה לייבל. לדברי הרב, במידה ותחליט להתלונן כנגד בעלה הוא עלול להתאבד. במקום לפנות למשטרה, שזאת חובתו על פי החוק, לרב יש תחושות והערכות משלו. "עקב מה שקרה, מה שאת בכית ומה שהוא בכה ומה שהילדים, הוא לא יעשה זאת יותר".

האם פנתה גם לרב ניסים אליהו. כששמע הרב על גילוי העריות ועל הטענות לפדופיליה, אמר: "תתני צ'אנס, אני מאמין שאחרי מה שהיה זה יפחיד אותו. הבנות גם יותר גדולות. כמה זמן עבר, שנתיים שלוש". ומי לדעת הרב אליהו אשם בכל המצב שנקלעה אליו האם ובנותיה? - "בן אדם אוכל בבית. אם הוא לא אוכל מספיק בבית, הוא הולך לאכול במסעדה בחוץ".

[...[

ממשטרת ישראל נמסר בתגובה: "כלל הממצאים שעלו בחקירה סוכמו, נותחו והועברו לפרקליטות לשם קבלת החלטה בעניין. משטרת ישראל מנהלת חקירות רגישות, כדוגמת חקירה זו, במשנה זהירות, במקצועיות ובקפידה".

מהפרקליטות נמסר בתגובה: "התיק נסגר מחוסר ראיות, לאחר שנבחנו החומרים בתיק החקירה. עיקרי חומר החקירה נמסרו למתלוננת לצורך הגשת ערר, אך זה טרם הוגש".

מהרב ברלנד נמסר דרך עורך דינו שרון נהרי: "הרב טוען כי הדברים סולפו ואינם מציגים את התמונה האמיתית. נגיב אם נידרש לעשות כן בפני כל רשות ולא בתקשורת". 

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.