Ari Shavit, Celebrated Israeli Columnist, Resigns After Sexual Harassment Accusations

NY Times  The author Ari Shavit attained international celebrity with a deeply introspective look at Israel’s remarkable rise and its controversial moments. With passion and authority, he helped make it possible for many liberal supporters of Israel to admire the nation while questioning its policies.

Accused of sexual harassment, Mr. Shavit resigned on Sunday as one of Israel’s most influential newspaper columnists and television commentators, promising to rethink how he approaches other people, especially women.

“In the last few days I have understood that I have been afflicted by blindness,” Mr. Shavit said in a statement published by Haaretz, the leading left-of-center newspaper, for which he wrote a widely read column. “For years I did not understand what people meant when they spoke of privileged men who do not see the damage that they cause to others. Now, I am beginning to understand.”

The woman who complained that Mr. Shavit, who is married, had tried to force her to kiss him in a hotel lobby two years ago praised him for taking responsibility.

“I’m grateful for Ari Shavit’s powerful honest statement,” the woman, Danielle Berrin, a writer for The Jewish Journal, wrote on Twitter. “His resolution to do ‘heshbon hanefesh’ — an accounting of the soul — is admirable.”

The unexpected fall from grace of one of Israel’s most prominent figures shocked his admirers both here and in the United States. In effect, it was unexpected collateral damage from the presidential campaign of Donald J. Trump. Ms. Berrin wrote about her encounter with Mr. Shavit to make a point about sexual harassment, after similar accusations were made against Mr. Trump.

But unlike Mr. Trump, Mr. Shavit acknowledged wrongdoing and did not attack his accuser’s truthfulness. A harsh critic of the Republican presidential candidate in his column, Mr. Shavit told people close to him that he was genuinely remorseful and determined to respond in a way opposite to that of Mr. Trump.

“I am ashamed of the mistakes I made with regards to people in general and women in particular,” he said in his public statement on Sunday. “I am embarrassed that I did not behave correctly to my wife and children. I am embarrassed about the consequences of what I did.” [...]

FBI re-opens email probe against established practice just before elections - No claims of damaging evidence just new material

NBC NEWS   [Wall Street Journal for background]

The FBI obtained a warrant to search emails related to the probe of Hillary Clinton's private server that were discovered on ex-congressman Anthony Weiner's laptop, law enforcement officials confirmed Sunday.

The warrant came two days after FBI Director James Comey revealed the existence of the emails, which law enforcement sources said were linked to Weiner's estranged wife, top Clinton aide Huma Abedin. The sources said Abedin used the same laptop to send thousands of emails to Clinton.

The FBI already had a warrant to search Weiner's laptop, but that only applied to evidence of his allegedly illicit communications with an underage girl.

Agents will now compare the latest batch of messages with those that have already been investigated to determine whether any classified information was sent from Clinton's server.

Comey's disclosure included few details about what the emails contained. In a letter to Congress, he said the FBI learned "of the existence of e-mails that appear to be pertinent" to the Clinton probe, but he added that the agency "cannot yet assess whether or not this material may be significant."

The revelation ignited fierce criticism. Citing the longstanding practice of avoiding even the appearance of acting in a manner that could tip the political scales, former Justice Department spokesman Matt Miller said that "most people, when they hear that the FBI is involved, automatically assume the negative."

Clinton called the move an "unprecedented" departure from FBI policy, and on Sunday, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid scolded Comey for potentially breaking the law.

"Your actions in recent months have demonstrated a disturbing double standard for the treatment of sensitive information, with what appears to be clear intent to aid one political party over another," the letter says. "I am writing to inform you that my office has determined that these actions may violate the Hatch Act."

The act bars government officials from using their authority to influence elections.

Reid also accused Comey of shielding Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump from scrutiny over his connections to Russia, saying "it has become clear that you possess explosive information about close ties and coordination" between Trump and his advisers and the Russian government.

The FBI didn't immediately respond to requests for comment on Reid's letter. Earlier, Comey said in an internal message to FBI employees that "we don't ordinarily tell Congress about ongoing investigations, but here I feel an obligation to do so given that I testified repeatedly in recent months that our investigation was completed."

The note added that it would "be misleading to the American people were we not to supplement the record. At the same time, however, given that we don't know the significance of this newly discovered collection of e-mails, I don't want to create a misleading impression."

Could a Diabetes Drug Help Beat Alzheimer's Disease?

Scientifici American

Most of the 20 million people diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in the U.S. take metformin to help control their blood glucose. The drug is ultrasafe: millions of diabetics have taken it for decades with few side effects beyond gastrointestinal discomfort. And it is ultracheap: a month's supply costs $4 at Walmart. And now new studies hint that metformin might help protect the brain from developing diseases of aging, even in nondiabetics.

Diabetes is a risk factor for neurodegenerative diseases, but using metformin is associated with a dramatic reduction in their incidence. In the most comprehensive study yet of metformin's cognitive effects, Qian Shi and her colleagues at Tulane University followed 6,000 diabetic veterans and showed that the longer a patient used metformin, the lower the individual's chances of developing Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, and other types of dementia and cognitive impairment. In line with some of the previous, smaller studies of long-term metformin use, patients in the new study who used the drug longer than four years had one quarter the rate of disease as compared with patients who used only insulin or insulin plus other antidiabetic drugs—bringing diabetics' risk level to that of the general population. The findings were presented in June at the American Diabetes Association's Scientific Sessions meeting.

Even in the absence of diabetes, Alzheimer's patients often have decreased insulin sensitivity in the brain, says Suzanne Craft, a neuroscientist who studies insulin resistance in neurodegenerative disease at the Wake Forest School of Medicine. The association has led some people to call Alzheimer's “type 3 diabetes.” Insulin plays many roles in the brain—it is involved in memory formation, and it helps to keep synapses free of protein debris, including the tau tangles and amyloid plaques that build up in Alzheimer's, Craft says.

Metformin, then, may help correct insulin issues in the aging brain. Research in animals shows that the drug's effect on neural stem cells might be key. Neuroscientists Jing Wang and Freda Miller, both then at Toronto's Hospital for Sick Children, showed that when nondiabetic mice are given metformin, their memory improves, thanks to an increase in the neural stem cell population and in the number of these cells that develop into healthy neurons in the hippocampus, the brain's memory center.

Human clinical trials also show promise in treating early Alzheimer's. Steven E. Arnold, a neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital showed that early Alzheimer's patients had small but significant improvements in their memory and cognitive functioning after taking metformin for eight weeks as compared with a placebo. Brain imaging also revealed some improvements in neural metabolism. Such small effects are the norm when it comes to Alzheimer's; even established drugs are only modestly effective and only for a limited period. “That is one of the great motivations to find new therapies,” Craft says.[...]

Convicted sex offender Stefan Colmer is planning to move to Jerusalem in November according to Jewish Community Watch

Jewish Community Watch has received credible information that Stefan Colmer has plans to return to Israel in early November, with intentions of moving to the Ramot neighborhood in Jerusalem. The authorities in Israel have been notified, as well as local community leaders.

In 2007, Stefan Colmer had escaped to Israel through Canada in an effort to evade arrest from the police in NY. He was formally charged in absentia with 8 counts of deviate sexual intercourse with two 13 year old minors on the same day that his aliyah status was approved. Months later Colmer was extradited back to NY where he was convicted in 2009 and served time until his release in February 2012.

Currently Colmer still holds Israeli citizenship under the alias Dovid Cohen.

Please share widely and act responsibly to protect our communities children.

אזהרה לתושבי ישראל

JCW קיבל מידע ממקור אמין שסטפן קולמר מתכנן לחזור לארץ בתחילת נובמבר, בכוונתו לגור בשכונת רמות בירושלים. הרשויות וראשי הקהילות עודכנו.

בשנת 2007 סטפן קולמר ברח לישראל דרך קנדה על מנת להינצל ממעצר בניו יורק. קולמר הואשם ב8 מעשי אונס עם שתי קטינים בני 13 באותו יום שמעמדו כעולה נכנס לתוקף. כעבור כמה חודשים הוסגר לניו יורק ושם הורשע ב2009 ושם ביצע את מעצרו עד לשחרורו מהכלא בשנת 2012.

כעת קולמר עדיין מחזיק באזרחות ישראלית בשם הבדוי שלו "דוד כהן".

נא לשתף מידע זו לציבור על מנת לדאוג לבטיחות ילדנו בצורה האחראית ביותר.

Kaminetsky-Greenblatt Heter: What Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky needs to do to rectify this unholy mess

1) Rav Kaminetsky needs to to make a public announcement that the Heter that he and his son engineered is invalid. It is not sufficient that his son write a letter saying he agrees with Rav Dovid Feinstein - even if he posts it on the Internet. Rav Shmuel needs to make it clear that he agrees with the many poskim that it never was valid because the facts used in the Heter are simply not true and even if they were they don't justify a heter according to Rav Moshe Feinsein. He needs to state that this is not a machlokess haposkim but is universally agreed.

It would be helpful if he clearly state that this type of heter is not appropriate unless there is clear, verifiable evidence presented to the truth of the allegations and that the evidence clearly meets Rav Moshe Feinstein's requirements. A full beis din of internationally recognized poskim needs to sign the psak which should be made public. The experts who testify need to be clearly and publicly identified and their evidence needs to be based on direct contact with the parties. The beis din must hear both sides from the husband and wife.

A handwritten letter will suffice - though it would be nice if a video was made public

2) He needs to state unequivocally that he has told Tamar and Adam to separate and that he has told Rav Greenblatt that the evidence he and his son presented him is not valid and that Rav Greenblatt needs to retract his psak

3) He needs to publicly apologize to Aharon Friedman for the grief that he has caused him and that he had no right to try and override the authority of the Baltimore Beis Din.

Mike McQueary Is Awarded $7.3 Million in Penn State Defamation Case

NY Times

A Pennsylvania jury on Thursday, in a defamation case against Penn State University, awarded $7.3 million to Mike McQueary, the former assistant football coach who in 2001 told Coach Joe Paterno that he had witnessed Jerry Sandusky sexually abusing a child in the locker room shower.

The jury, which deliberated for about four hours, found that Penn State had defamed McQueary with a statement in 2011 defending its former athletic director and vice president against a charge of perjury related to what McQueary said he had told them about Sandusky, a longtime defensive coordinator at Penn State.

Judge Thomas Gavin, who presided in the case, still has to rule on McQueary’s accusation that Penn State retaliated against him after he testified at Sandusky’s 2012 trial. McQueary was not allowed to coach at Penn State’s first game after Paterno was fired in connection with the scandal, in 2011, and McQueary’s contract was not renewed.

Even before Thursday’s ruling, the scandal had already cost Penn State well over $100 million in N.C.A.A. penalties, legal fees and settlements to victims of Sandusky’s sexual abuse. Sandusky was convicted in 2012 of sexually abusing 10 boys and was sentenced to 30 to 60 years in prison.

McQueary testified to a grand jury in 2010 that in 2001 he told Paterno, and later Athletic Director Tim Curley and the university vice president Gary Schultz, that he had witnessed the abuse. The testimony helped prosecutors eventually charge Sandusky, who is now 72.

The Pennsylvania attorney general subsequently charged Curley and Schultz with perjury after they told a grand jury that McQueary did not tell them Sandusky had committed something as serious as sexual abuse. The perjury charge was dismissed, but Schultz, Curley and Graham B. Spanier, the former university president, still face criminal charges of failure to report suspected child abuse and endangering the welfare of children. [...]

McQueary’s testimony in December 2011 helped show that Paterno, one of the most successful and beloved coaches in college football history, had heard that Sandusky had abused a boy at least a decade before Sandusky’s behavior became publicly known. Court documents released this summer showed that Paterno heard such an allegation as early as 1976. 

Beit Shemesh man allegedly molests young girls who came to help clean the house while his wife was in the hospital.

Arutz 7

An act of kindness by neighbors looking to help was repaid in the cruelest fashion, when a father took advantage of his wife’s absence from the home to allegedly sexually molest two young girls.

The alleged incident took place in a haredi neighborhood of Beit Shemesh, west of Jerusalem.

The mother of the family in question had recently given birth, and was still in the hospital. During her hospital stay, neighbors of the family sent two young girls, ages 11 and 12, to help out with chores.

According to haredi website BeHadrei Haredim, the father was supposed to be out of the house at the time, but was in fact there when the two girls arrived.

After the girls cleaned his house, the man allegedly began to molest them

One of the girls, however, managed to escape and notify her mother of what had transpired. The girls’ mother quickly arrived, took her other daughter, and called the police. [...]

The stench of corruption keeps growing: ‘Bill Clinton, Inc.’ Memo Reveals Tangled Business, Charitable Ties

Time

A 2011 memo made public Wednesday by Wikileaks revealed new details of how former President Bill Clinton made tens of millions of dollars for himself and his wife, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, through an opaque, ethically messy amalgam of philanthropic, business and personal activities.

The memo was written by Bill Clinton’s longtime aide, Doug Band, and is among tens of thousands of emails apparently stolen from Hillary Clinton’s campaign chief, John Podesta, in what U.S. officials believe is part of a massive Russian-backed attempt to disrupt the U.S. election.

The Band memo came in response to an investigation undertaken by a law firm, Simpson Thatcher, into the activities of the Clinton Foundation at the behest of its board. The board was concerned that some of the activities undertaken by Band and others on behalf of the President could threaten the Foundation’s IRS status as a charity, according to Band’s memo. Chelsea Clinton had also reported concerns to Podesta and other Clinton advisors that Band and his recently-launched consulting firm, Teneo, were using her father’s name without his knowledge to contact British lawmakers for clients, including Dow Chemical.

In the 12-page memo, Band describes how he and several colleagues spent much of the years after Bill Clinton’s presidency working to fund the Clinton Foundation, which has raised nearly $2 billion from individuals, corporations and governments for charities focusing on climate change, economic development, health, women and girls issues and other causes. Band claims in the memo that from 2006 to 2011, he and a colleague, Justin Cooper, raised $46 million for the Foundation through the Clinton Global Initiative, an annual networking conference that is one of the Foundation’s big sources of income.

But the Foundation work was just a part of what Bill Clinton did during his wife’s time as a Senator and Secretary of State, and it wasn’t always clear where the former president’s non-profit activities ended and his for-profit ones began. Five months before he wrote the memo, Band joined forces with a recently retired State Department envoy, Declan Kelly, to form Teneo, which Band said provided merchant and investment banking services, corporate restructuring, public relations and communications services and strategic advising services to 20 clients, including Coca-Cola, Dow Chemical, UBS, Barclays and BHP Billiton, among others. Over that period, Band says in the memo, Teneo raised $8 million for the Clinton Foundation.

And Band was also organizing personal income directly for Clinton. Under the heading, “For-Profit Activity of President Clinton (i.e. Bill Clinton, Inc.),” Band wrote, “We have dedicated our selves to helping the President secure and engage in for-profit activities—including speeches, books, and advisory service engagements… In support of the President’s for-profit activity, we also have solicited and obtained, as appropriate, in-kind services for the President and his family—for personal travel, hospitality, vacation and the like. Neither Justin nor I are separately compensated for these activities (e.g., we do not receive a fee for, or percentage of, the more than $50 million in for-profit activity we have personally helped to secure for President Clinton to date or the $66 million in future contracts, should he choose to continue with those engagements).”

Band mentions four such “arrangements” without naming them. Bill Clinton was paid nearly $18 million to be “honorary chancellor” of a for-profit college, Laureate International Universities, according to reports and the family’s tax returns. A Dubai-based firm, GEMS Education, paid Bill Clinton more than $560,000 in 2015, according to the tax returns. Band also lists a variety of speaking fees, previously disclosed by the Clintons, including hundreds of thousands of dollars each from UBS, Ericsson, BHP and Barclays. In 2011 alone, according to the Clinton’s tax returns, Bill Clinton earned $13,454,000 in speaking fees.

No evidence has been found to support allegations of a quid pro quo of official acts by Hillary Clinton as senator or Secretary of State in exchange for the money received by the Clintons or the Clinton Foundation. However the messiness and opacity of the relationship between Clinton’s personal, business and philanthropic undertakings detailed in the memo raises new questions about Bill Clinton’s activity. In the email to which Band’s draft memo was attached, Band tells Podesta he has removed the “lasry section all together.” Marc Lasry is a hedge fund manager and Clinton donor who funded an unsuccessful investment vehicle launched by Chelsea Clinton’s husband Marc Mezvinsky.

Other questions arise in the penultimate paragraph of the memo, entitled “Other Matters.” Without providing details, Band writes that since the end of Bill Clinton’s presidency he and Cooper had served as the primary contact and point of management for President Clinton’s activities, including political, business and Foundation matters, speeches, books, and family/personal needs, including “securing in-kind private airplane travel, in-kind vacation stays, and supporting family business and personal needs.” [...]

Don't suppress the truth of Torah - even regarding your own rebbe or gedolim

Recently a prominent rav told me that it is critically important not only to keep the Torah but also not to be afraid of any man in reporting the truth - and that I should keep up what I am doing

Devarim (1:17) states, you shall not be afraid of the face of man; for the judgment is God’s. Rashi (Devarim 1:17), Lo Saguru - Do not be afraid of any man. Another explanation is one should not hold back your words before any man. The Tosefta (Sanhedrin 1:8), What is the sources that says that if you are sitting before the judges and you know a merit for the poor and and liability for the rich that you can not remain silent? Because the Torah say, You shall not be afraid of the face of man (Devarim 1:14). That means that you should not hold back your words before any man. Sotah (47b), When they who displayed partiality in judgment multiplied, the command you shall not be afraid [of the face of man] became void and you shall not respect [persons in judgment] ceased to be practiced; and people threw off the yoke of heaven and placed upon themselves the yoke of human beings. The Yerushalmi Sanhedrin (1:1), When two litigants come before you – one who is powerful and one who is weak – prior to hearing their claims it is allowed for a judge to say he doesn’t want to deal with the case out of fear that if he finds the strong one guilty it will make the strong one his enemy. However once he has heard their claims it is not allowed to say that he doesn’t want to deal with the case because it says in Devarim (1:17), Do not be afraid of any man and suppress your views against him. Rather the judges need to know who they are judging and before Whom they are judging…

Sifri Devarim (17): Do not be afraid of any man. Perhaps a judge will say that he is afraid that one of the litigants will kill his son or burn down his harvest or destroy his crops – the Torah say, Do not be afraid of any man because judgement belongs to G-d… And that includes one’s own teacher as it states in Tanchumin (Mishpatim) What is the source that says if a student is sitting before his Rebbe and he sees a merit to the poor and an obligation to the rich that he should not be silent? Because it says in the Torah, Do not be afraid of any man.

Avoiding Coke, pastry, candy, pizza, burgers and other things that are primarily for physical pleasures

Chinuch (117):The prohibition of offering up leaven or honey… Now concerning the rejection of honey, we would say to the tender children in order to discipline them, that it is to influence one’s concepts so that a person will minimize his striving after foods that are sweet to his taste, in the way that gluttons and guzzlers are always drawn after everything sweet. Thus let him set his heart only on foods that are beneficial to his body and necessary to his sustenance, and that maintain the health of his limbs. Hence it is fitting for every intelligent human being to set his intention in his food and drink not towards the purpose of the tactile sensations of his throat. If people were but wise they would understand this (Devarim 32:29) – that the entire matter of the tactile sense is shameful for them. Then all the more certainly is it not fitting for them to aim for it and to take pleasure in it, but only what nature makes absolutely necessary. It was some of the men of wisdom who wrote that the tactile sense is something shameful for us (Aristole cited by Rambam in Moreh Nevuchim 2:36).

Rambam (Hilchos De'os 3:2): A person should direct his heart and the totality of his behavior to one goal, becoming aware of God, blessed be He. The [way] he rests, rises, and speaks should all be directed to this end. For example: when involved in business dealings or while working for a wage, he should not think solely of gathering money. Rather, he should do these things, so that he will be able to obtain that which the body needs - food, drink, a home and a wife. Similarly, when he eats, drinks and engages in intimate relations, he should not intend to do these things solely for pleasure to the point where he will eat and drink only that which is sweet to the palate and engage in intercourse for pleasure. Rather, he should take care to eat and drink only in order to be healthy in body and limb. Therefore, he should not eat all that the palate desires like a dog or a donkey. Rather, he should eat what is beneficial for the body, be it bitter or sweet. Conversely, he should not eat what is harmful to the body, even though it is sweet to the palate. For example: a person with a warm constitution should not eat meat or honey, nor drink wine, as Solomon has stated in a parable: The eating of much honey is not good (Proverbs 25:27). One should drink endive juice, even though it it bitter, for then, he will be eating and drinking for medical reasons only, in order to become healthy and be whole - for a man cannot exist without eating and drinking. Similarly, he should not have intercourse except to keep his body healthy and to preserve the [human] race. Therefore, he should not engage in intercourse whenever he feels desire, but when he knows that he requires a seminal emission for medical reasons or in order to preserve the [human] race.

Rambam (Moreh Nevuchim 2:40): In order to be enabled to answer this question, we must examine the merits of the person, obtain an accurate account of his actions, and consider his character. The best test is the rejection, abstention, and contempt of bodily pleasures: for this is the first condition of men, and a fortiori of prophets: they must especially disregard pleasures of the sense of touch, which, according to Aristotle, is a disgrace to us: and, above all, restrain from the pollution of sensual intercourse

Shulchan Aruch (O.C. 231:1): If it is impossible for a person to learn Torah without taking a nap during the day – he should take a nap. Rema: ... The permissibility of taking a nap during the day is only if he doesn't take a long one because it is prohibited to sleep during the day more that more than the sleep of a horse which is 60 breaths. And even a short nap should be minimized because his intent in taking the nape is not for physical pleasure but to strengthen his body to be able to serve G d. In general in partaking of all the pleasures of this world he should not focus on the physical pleasure but rather that it enables him to serve G d as it says (Mishlei 3:6), In all your ways you should know Him.. Our Sages explain this to mean that all your deeds should be for the purpose of serving G-d (leShem Shamayim) – even though activities which are optional (reshus) and not a mitzva. For example eating, drinking, walking, sitting, standing, sexual intercourse, converstaion and all physical needs – they should all be done for the purpose of serving G d or something which will lead to serving G d. Therefore even if a person is thirsty or hungry, if he eats or drinks in order to get pleasure – it is not praiseworthy. He should instead have intent to eat and drink in order to live so that he can serve his Creator. Similarly even to sit in the private meeting of upright men or to stand in the place of the righteous or to follow the advice of fair men – if he does it for his own pleasure and to fulfill his desires and lusts – it is not praiseworthy unless he does these things for the sake of Heaven. The same is true for sleeping. It is obvious that even when a person studies Torah and does mitzvos that he should not be involved in sleeping to give himself pleasure, But even at a time when he is exhausted and needs to sleep in or to rest from his exhaustion – if he sleeps for the sake of pleasure it is not praiseworthy.Rather his intent should be to give rest to his eyes and his body for the sake of his health so that he won't get confused in his Torah studies because of his lack of sleep. And similarly concerning marital relations according to the time and frequency that the Torah teaches – if he is doing it for his own physical pleasure – that is disgusting. Even if his intent is to have children who will serve him or to fill his place – this is not praiseworthy. Rather his intent should be that he wants to have children who will serve G d or to fulfill the mitzva of onah (conjugal rights of his wife) – and he does it in the manner of one who is paying back a debt. It is exactly the same regarding conversation - even in discussing matters of wisdom – his intent needs to be for the sake of serving G d or something which will lead to serving G d. The fundamental principle in this matter is that a person should pay full attention to what he does and carefully evaluate all his deeds objectively. If he sees that something will lead to serving G d he should do it but otherwise he should not do it. One who is guided by this principle will constantly be serving G d.

Bereishit - Mistakes are our friends by Allan Katz

Guest post by Allan Katz

R' Shimon ben Pazzi pointed out a contradiction in a verse. The verse says ' And God made 2 great luminaries - lights … and immediately the verse continues ... the greater light and the smaller light. The moon complained to God by saying how can 2 kings wear one crown, how can the sun and the moon rule the skies together. God acknowledges the moon's objection by answering -Go then and diminish yourself. The moon complains – because I made a proper and valid point, must I make myself smaller? God then tries to appease the moon because of its grievance and says that the moon will rule also during the day- we see the moon during the day, the Jewish calendar follows the moon, and great people will compare themselves to the moon. The moon is not appeased and consoled until God says to the children of Israel – on the new moon bring atonement for me for making the moon smaller. Only here with regard to the new moon sin offering, is it emphasized that the sin offering is a sin offering for God. – Hulin 60:b

תלמוד בבלי מסכת חולין דף ס/ב - רבי שמעון בן פזי רמי כתיב ויעש אלהים את שני המאורות הגדולים וכתיב את המאור הגדול ואת המאור הקטן אמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד אמר לה לכי ומעטי את עצמך אמרה לפניו רבש"ע הואיל ואמרתי לפניך דבר הגון אמעיט את עצמי אמר לה לכי ומשול ביום ובלילה אמרה ליה ..... זיל לימנו בך ישראל ימים ושנים ........זיל ליקרו צדיקי בשמיך ......חזייה דלא קא מיתבא דעתה אמר הקב"ה הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח והיינו דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש מה נשתנה שעיר של ראש חדש שנאמר בו לה' אמר הקב"ה שעיר זה יהא פרה על שמיעטתי את

הירח

The Talmud here is problematic because we cannot associate with God mistakes, admitting mistakes and a need for atonement. The commentators talk about not taking this piece literally and that we are talking about a parable, where the moon is a metaphor for the people of Israel. One commentary suggests we bring atonement before God and not for God. Another commentary suggests that there are important lessons to be learned from this text. God is compromising Himself in order to teach us- דרך ארץ derech e'retz – the way of the world, that when a master needs to punish or discipline a servant, he should try and compensate and appease the servant. This is an important lesson even for parents who try to parent in a collaborative and ' working with ' way and find mutually satisfying solutions to problems. Sometimes we have to insist on kids doing things our way and thwart their autonomy. We should then try to appease them and compensate for their loss of autonomy in other areas. Before the creation of man, God consulted with the angels about creating man. God did not need to consult the angels. He did so in order to teach the way of the world דרך ארץ, derech e'retz that people with power should consult with their subordinates. Maybe, here God is trying to teach us an important lesson – that making mistakes and admitting to them is part of creation, learning and the growth process. Also we see that Teshuva – the process of repentance whereby we admit mistakes and make amends, was created before the world was created. Mistakes are part of the learning process and arriving at the truth, without them there is no progress. - אין עומדים על דברי תורה עד שנכשלים בהם - we don't become proficient in Torah until we make mistakes. Mistakes indicate that our actions were lacking. They can be lacking because we did something wrong or they can be lacking because they lack a certain quality, energy or engagement etc. In a sense God's actions were lacking when he created a physical universe that could not live up to spiritual ideals and He had to make the moon smaller and that its light would totally disappear at certain times of the month. In an ideal world both the sun and moon could share their crown by focusing on a unity of purpose and serving the ultimate king and ruler God. Then, there would not be a problem of idolatry – sun worship – as the sun alone did not rule the skies. When we have materialism, human fallibility and weakness, jealousy and arrogance, 2 kings cannot share one crown. The Maharal explains that what was lacking in the creation of the moon was not only its lacking in size, but the light from the moon, because of the phases of the moon would eventually disappear towards the beginning of the month. The atonement – kapparah for this lack of light would be the removal of this lack, shortcoming and inadequacy by man bringing the sin offering at the moment when there is no light from the moon. The sin offering does not come as a punishment or a consequence for a mistake in attempt to appease and placate an angry God, but it is a means to focus on our humility and inadequacy like the moon on Rosh Chodesh – the beginning of the month and connect to God. A man who thinks he is a gadol, a great luminary is unable to repent and do teshuva. The word sacrifice in Hebrew is 'korban – קרבן ' becoming closer to God and in this way he brings more spiritual light to the world. The imperfection and compromise in the moon's capacity now became the catalyst for more light and growth and in this way man would begin to remove the lack until in time the lack is removed and the glory of the moon is restored. We pray for this in the Kiddush levanah – sanctification of the moon prayer – ' may it be the will of God to fill the flaw of the moon that there will be no diminution in it. May the light of the moon be like the light of the sun and like the light of the 7 days of creation, as it was before it was diminished as it is said – the 2 great luminaries. '

The Bible has examples of great people who gained credibility when they admitted mistakes and did teshuva – repented – the brothers of Joseph, Yehuda, and David. In a political climate and an educational system where mistakes are punished we need more than these examples. We need God to teach us the way of the world – derech e'retz that not only does admitting mistakes and doing teshuva gives people credibility , but mistakes are part of the learning and creative process. In today's world and punitive environment, we would never have had the opportunity to learn from a king David how to repent and do teshuva and see the courage of Yehuda as he was prepared to expose his vulnerability and admit his mistake. Yehuda was given a leadership role because of this courage. The approach of punishing mistakes rather than encouraging the admitting of mistakes and doing teshuva promotes immoral behavior, lying, cover-ups and hoping that issues will simply die , impacts on the public system, schools and families.

In academic learning we need to go beyond the right answer to a deeper thinking. Jerome Bruner said – Knowing is a process, not a product. Confusion, mistakes and the more sophisticated the mistakes lead us to deeper thinking. Ted Sizer said that good schools promote displays of incompetence in order to help students find their way to competence. The focus should be on the student's thinking on how they got the answer and not the answer itself. Good teachers will challenge students with questions and even mistaken ones. In this respect, God himself did something similar. The Gemorrah Bava Metzia 59a relates a halachic dispute between Rabbi Eliezer and the sages. Rabbi Eliezer calls upon the carob tree, a stream and the walls of the study hall to perform miracles in order to prove that he was right. He then said, ‘If the law is as I say, let it be proved from Heaven,’ whereupon a heavenly voice cried out: ‘Why do you dispute with Rabbi Eliezer, seeing that in all matters the law is as he says!’ But, Rabbi Yehoshua arose and exclaimed: ‘It [the law] is not in heaven’ (Devarim 30:12). What is meant by this? Rabbi Yirmiyahu said: ‘It means that the Torah has already been given at Mount Sinai; we pay no attention to a heavenly voice, because You, God, have long since written in the Torah at Mount Sinai, “One must incline after the majority” (Shemot 23:2)'” “Rabbi Nathan met Eliyahu [the prophet, who is considered to be immortal] and asked him: ‘What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, do at that moment [when Rabbi Yehoshua declared that he would not obey His heavenly voice]?’ He replied, ‘He smiled [with joy], saying, my sons have defeated me; my sons have defeated me'. Students who are afraid of making mistakes are unlikely to ask for help when they need it, unlikely to feel safe enough to take intellectual risks and are unlikely to be intrinsically motivated. For the sake of deeper learning and understanding God deliberately makes a mistake to challenge man's thinking and in a sense admits his mistake by acknowledging Rabbi Yehoshua's thinking.

We need to change our attitude to mistakes and see that mistakes are our friends that give us opportunities for growth, teshuva and arriving at the truth.

Torah Temima pays 2 million dollars to settle with 2 victims of Kolko

NY Post

A prominent Orthodox Jewish school in Brooklyn agreed to pay an unprecedented $2.1 million to two former students who charged their teacher — accused serial molester Rabbi Joel Kolko — of sexually assaulting them, The Post has learned.

Kolko’s case marks the first time a New York yeshiva has paid off victims of sex abuse, experts said.

“This is unheard of. I am not aware of any other settlements,” said Rabbi Yosef Blau, a spiritual adviser at Yeshiva University in Manhattan and longtime victims advocate.

Secret settlements between Yeshiva Torah Temimah on Ocean Parkway and two boys — 6 years old when molested — were filed in Brooklyn Supreme Court a week ago when the yeshiva failed to make payments.

Lawyers for the two plaintiffs filed a judgment for $1 million — the total the yeshiva still owes both boys for the trauma they suffered.

Both lawsuits alleged the yeshiva and its leader, Rabbi Lipa Margulies, knew for decades that Kolko was molesting students, but chose to keep him on as an elementary teacher and “give him unfettered access to young children.” [...]

In the newly revealed settlements, Torah Temimah in November 2014 paid one ex-student $900,000 and the other $1.35 million. The school admitted no wrongdoing. [...]

Four other ex-students have previously sued Torah Temimah as adults, charging Kolko molested them at ages 11 to 13, but the courts tossed their cases as filed too late. [...]

Kaminetksy-Greenblatt Heter: The rabbinical leadership is greatly embarrassed and hopes for collective amnesia

Over Yom Tov I have made inquiries about the deafening silence regarding the Kaminetsky-Greenblatt heter for adultery. The consensus seems to be that a horrible error in judgment was made by the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt. But since they refuse to acknowledge it the only alternative is to forget about it and pretend it never happened. 

A relative who learns in Lakewood told me that everyone is aware of the issue - but the majority deliberate avoid learning the details. "If my rabbeim felt there was something I should know about or do they would have told me. Every time someone puts a notice about this on a bulletin board it is immediately torn down.  I don't know the details but don't you think that Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky knows more than you do? How can you question a gadol? Especially when no one else is?" 

My response was that the major poskim of our generation have publicly said there is no heter and that this is clearly not even a machlokes haposkim. It is simply that the rabbonim of our generation do not want to hold Rav Kaminetsky accountable for promoting adultery and hope the issue will be forgotten. They view that preserving Rav Shmuel's status as gadol hador is more important that stopping adultery or the damage done to emunas chachomim.

I heard from other sources that it is not just the avreichim of Lakewood who have their heads stuck in the sand and don't want to know the details - but the gedolim in our generation are doing the same thing.

In short, the Kaminetskys and Rav Greenblatt have played a game of chicken with the rabbis of our generation and the rabbis were the one's who blinked and conceded defeat.  Or put another way, collectively the brilliant dedicated wonderful Torah teachers, role-models and  leaders  of our generation have regressed to the mental status of a baby and think that if they close their eyes and pretend they don't know about adultery the problem will go away. They think that  have succeeded in training their students only to think when given permission. Unfortunately for everyone - there is a significant minority who are well aware of all the facts and this has destroyed their emunas chachomim. 

This is not a machlokess of halacha - it is a monumental example of cowardice and failure of nerve - which I know of no historic precedent. They have covered up their failure by claiming that only gedolim can deal with this issue and at the same time they refuse to deal with it! The damage will be for all future generations who will not recover from this betrayal.

Is there anyone still surprised why our children are going off the derech? Why we have so much bad news? (Hint - it is not because of the Internet nor the bloggers who simply reveal the elementary truth.)

Please show this letter to your rabbis and ask them to defend their inaction in the fact of the perversion of halacha and the promoting of adultery by the gadol hador. If they want documentation tell them it is in the upper right hand corner of my blog. It contains links to all the major documents in this case.

Convicted pedophile: Serving a long jail sentence which will be commuted if he agrees to castration

update: Medical Daily
Castration is not a cure for sexual attraction to children - but it does reduce the sex drive and thus the likelihood of sex abuse. However it doesn't work with everyone and while recidivisim rate is lower in castrated patient - a certain percent (less than 10%) repeat their crimes. It is best combined with psychotherapy. With chemical castration - it works only if the drugs are taken for a lifetime and thus careful monitoring is required.
--------------------------------------------------------
I was recently asked about the permissibility of a Jewish sex offender being treated with castration. As I have noted there are European countries and American states which give a sex offender the choice of jail or castration. Can he take the castration option to gain his freedom from a long jail sentence? Furthermore if he is castrated - is there a difference between physical or chemical castration?

I was told in the name of Rav Shlomo Zalman Auerbach that sex offenders in Europe were castrated by the Jewish community - though I could not find a discussion in the rabbinic literature. One posek I asked said that if it is demanded by the authorities it is permitted -  but should be done by drugs.

Rav Moshe Feinstein (E.H. III 15): Permits chemical sterilization if there is no direct impact on the reproductive organs themselves.

שו"ת אגרות משה אבן העזר חלק ג סימן טו

בענין זריקת איזה משקה בגוף האיש שעושה שלא יוליד ששה חדשים ואח"כ חוזר כבתחלה אם יש ע"ז איסור סירוס עש"ק ור"ח אלול תשכ"ה. מע"כ ידיד אהובי הרה"ג מהר"ר אפרים גרינבלאט שליט"א.

בדבר ששמעת שהמציאו הרופאים מחדש זריקה בגוף אנשים שמועיל זה לששה חדשים שלא יוליד ואח"כ חוזר לכתחלה שיכול להוליד שדעת כתר"ה שאסור משום שפשוט לך שאסור גם סירוס לזמן, וממילא יש לאסור גם זריקות אלו דהוא סירוס לזמן וכוונת כתר"ה דאף דלא עביד כלום באברי הזרע אסור דהא משקה כוס של עיקרין נמי אסור.

והנה לא ידוע לי מאין פשוט לך שסירוס לזמן נמי הוא בלאו דסירוס דהא לא מצינו בגמ' שאיכא סירוס לזמן, ואדרבה הא מפורש במתני' יבמות דף ע"ט שסריס אדם אין לו רפואה, והוכיח מזה הר"א ממיץ שהביא בנ"י בדף ע"ו שהא דאר"י אמר שמואל שם בניקב ונסתם דכשר לקהל וכן בברייתא שם ניקב פסול מפני שהוא שותת נסתם כשר מפני שהוא מוליד וזהו פסול שחוזר להכשירו, הוא רק לענין הולד שבשעה שהיה הנקב הולד פסול משום שברור שאין הולד ממנו וכשנסתם והוליד כשר, משום דאין לפרש שהוא פסול לקהל כשהיה הנקב דפצוע דכא אין לו רפואה ובהכרח ניקב שמתרפא ע"י סתימה אינו הפצוע דכא שבקרא עיין שם, ופשוט שר"א במתני' שאיירי בחליצה שסובר שלא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו בסריס אדם מפני שאין לו רפואה אין כוונתו דוקא על הקרא דפצוע דכא וכרות שפכה שנאמר לענין דפסול לקהל בפרשת תצא אלא הוא גם על הקרא דומעוך וכתות ונתוך /ונתוק/ וכרות שבפרשת אמור שאין להם רפואה ואף ר' יהושע לא פליג בזה, וממילא בקרא דובארצכם לא תעשו שאוסר לסרס הוא רק באופן זה שאין לו רפואה, הרי ראיה להרא"מ שלנקב הגיד שהוא סרוס שיש לו רפואה בסתימה ליתא ע"ז לאו דסירוס, וכ"ש שליכא הלאו בסירוס שא"צ רפואה שיעבור מאליו לאחר זמן להרא"מ.

ורק שיש לדון אליבא דרוב הפוסקים החולקים עליו ופוסלין ניקב הגיד כל זמן שהוא נקוב לקהל אף שאית לו רפואה בסתימה וכן איפסק ברמב"ם פט"ז מאי"ב ה"ה ובטור וש"ע סימן ה' סעיף ד' ויפרשו דר"א שאומר בסריס אדם שלא חולץ ולא חולצין לאשתו איירי ברוב סריסי אדם שאין להם רפואה, אולי אסרי לסרס גם באופן שיש רפואה בסתימה מאחר דהקרא דפצוע דכא איירי לדידהו אף באופן שיש לו רפואה. והנה לכאורה כיון דאיסור סירוס נאמר בקרא דפסולין למזבח, ומשמע מרמב"ם פ"ז מב"מ ה"ח שלא נפסל בניקב למזבח שהרי בהדברים שפסול למזבח בניקב הזכיר בכל אחד, ובאברי הזרע כתב רק נפצע ונידק וניכרת שפסולין ולא כתב גם ניקב, ואולי הוא משום שנקב לא נחשב ניכר אף בגיד, ולכן אף שודאי לא שייך ענין ניכר לאיסור סירוס ומטעם זה אף שלראב"י אינם מומין בביצים ולר' יוסי בנחתך וכרות אינם מומים בביצים כדאיתא בבכורות דף ל"ט משום שלא נחשבו ניכרין, מ"מ ודאי מודו דאיכא גם בביצים איסור סירוס בדברים אלו, וכן בחוטי ביצים שמשמע שאינו מום גם לדינא שאיפסק כר' יהודה שכולן אף בביצים שהרי לא חשיב הרמב"ם לענין מומים שם אלא הגיד והביצים ולא החוטי ביצים וגם כתב שרק י"ב מומים באברי הזרע ואם גם בחוטי ביצים היו מומין הי"ל לומר ט"ז מומין, שהרי חוטי ביצים אינו בכלל ביצים דבט"ז /דבפ' ט"ז/ מאי"ב ה"ג שגם בחוטי ביצים נפסל לקהל, כתב הרמב"ם ובשלשה אברים אפשר שיפסל הזכר בגיד ובביצים ובשבילין שבהן תתבשל ש"ז והן נקראין חוטי ביצים, ומ"מ באיסור סירוס מפורש ברמב"ם פט"ז מאי"ב הי"א שאסור גם בחוטי ביצים, והוא משום דענין לא ניכר לא שייך לענין לאו דסירוס, וא"כ ודאי גם ראב"י ור' יוסי מודים שאיסור סירוס הוא אף בביצים וחוטי ביצים אף שהאיסור נאמר בפ' מומין למזבח שלא נפסלו בחוטי ביצים ואף לראב"י שלא נאמר כלל בביצים מאחר דליכא הטעם שחלוק לענין מומין. מ"מ בניקב הגיד שאיכא טעם שלא לאסור אף בסירוס משום דאית לו רפואה אפשר שכיון שנכתב האיסור בפרשת מומין למזבח אין לאסור בניקב אף שהם משני טעמים דלמזבח הא היה פסול מצד שאית לו רפואה דהא גם מום עובר פסול למזבח ומה שאינו מום וכשר למזבח הוא משום שאינו ניכר, ולענין איסור סירוס אינו כלום זה שאינו ניכר אלא משום שאית לו רפואה שלא נאסר, מ"מ אין לנו לאסור יותר ממה שנוכל למילף מהקרא אף שהם משני טעמים משום דעכ"פ הרי הקרא לא נאמר אלא מה שפסול למזבח ורק שילפינן ממה שנאמר גם מה שדמי להא שנאמר דאין מולידין כמוהו והרי אין למילף ניקב שאית לו רפואה מאלו שנאמר בקרא דאין להם רפואה.

וכן לכאורה משמע מהרמב"ם שנקט במסרס אחר מסרס שלוקה כיצד בא אחד וכרת את הגיד ובא אחר וכרת את הביצים או נתקן ובא אחר וכרת חוטי ביצים וכן נקט כולן בגיד באחד מעך ואחד נתק ואחד כרת ולא נקט גם בא אחד ונקב, שהוא משום דעל נקב ליכא הלאו משום דאית לו רפואה בסתימה. ואף שלא נקט גם בביצים שנקבן ולא מצינו שיש גם בנקיבת ביצים רפואה, אולי הוא איידי דגיד או הרמב"ם ידע דגם בנקיבת ביצים איכא רפואה ע"י סתימה שיפתחו הכיס ויסתמו הנקב שבהביצים ויסתמו פתיחת הכיס ע"י תפירה או איכא רפואה אחרת, שלכן ליכא איסור סירוס בנקב גם בביצים. ויותר משמע זה בטור שהוא לא כתב הלשון אסור להפסיד אברי הזרע כלשון הרמב"ם והש"ע שהיה משמע כל עניני הפסד שאפשר לומר זה גם על עשיית נקב, דהא כתב אסור לפצוע הגיד או הביצים או הגידים התלוין ולא נקט גם ניקב אף שסמוך לעיל מזה איירי בניקב שפוסלו לקהל כל זמן שלא נסתם כהרא"מ שהביא, הרי משמע קצת שלא נאסר בניקב. אך ודאי אינו ראיה גדולה אבל משמעות לסלק הפשיטות שכתב כתר"ה לאיסור ודאי איכא וגם קצת משמעות להתיר. וגם כיון שלהרא"מ ודאי ליכא איסור אין לנו לומר שפליגי עליו במה שלא מצינו כיון דאין הכרח שיהיו תלוין זב"ז אין להרבות מחלוקת.

אך אף אם נימא דבניקב שצריך למעשה רפואה יסברו שפסול לבא בקהל כל זמן שלא נסתם ואיכא גם הלאו דסירוס בכה"ג, מ"מ באם יעבור בלא שום מעשה רפואה במשך זמן, כהא דמצינו בכה"ג בהכהו על ידו וצמתה וסופה לחזור בב"ק דף פ"ה, אולי איתא זה גם באברי הזרע שהכהו על גידו וביציו וצמתו וסופם לחזור במשך זמן ממילא מסתבר שהיה כשר לבא בקהל אף שנעשה המעשה בהאברים, דכיון דיעבור ממילא במשך הזמן אין להחשיב זה כפצוע דכא, דהא בפציעה ובכריתה ליכא ענין זה דיעבור ממילא, ואין שייך לפרש זה בהקרא, דבשלמא הא דניקב שייך לומר שהוא בכלל פציעה וכריתה הנכתב לפסול, אבל הכאה על האברים ויהיו צמותין מזה אינו בכלל לשון הקרא, רק שאולי ניליף מפציעה וכריתה במה מצינו כיון שהטעם הוא משום דאינו מוליד הרי גם כשצמתו אינו מוליד, ולכן שייך למילף רק צמיתה דאין סופה לחזור דאף שגם ניקב הוא בכלל פציעה הרי צריך דוקא למעשה רפואה ואין ללמד גם לסופה לחזור מעצמה במשך הזמן. ונמצא שאין גם לאסור אף לרוב הפוסקים החולקים על הרא"מ כשיעבור מאליו בלא רפואות, אף אם נימא שפליגי בצריך לרפואה שאיכא גם הלאו דסירוס.

ולכן אף אם נסתפק עדיין קצת שמא להחולקים על הרא"מ אסור גם בצמתה באופן שסופה לחזור בלא מעשה רפואה, יש לסמוך עכ"פ בכוס של עיקרין בכה"ג שהוא רק לזמן שיעבור ממילא בלא רפואה שאין לאסור משום דהוא רק מדרבנן שספק להקל, ואף אם נימא שכוס של עיקרין נמי הוא מדאורייתא מקרא דמשחתם ואין לוקין משום שלא נאמר לאו ע"ז כדסובר הגר"א בס"ק כ"ח, מסתבר דכיון שסופה לחזור ממילא לא הוי זה השחתה. ובפרט שחזינן שלא מרבין כל דבר ממשחתם שהנקבה מותרת בכוס עיקרין דמאחר שכל איסורה הוא רק ממשחתם לא ילפינן גם כוס עיקרין, לכן אף לאיש שאסור כוס עיקרין הוא רק בנתעקר לעולם, ואולי גם לעובר אם הוא דוקא במעשה רפואה ולא לעובר ממילא בלא מעשה. והא דזריקת משקה לתוך בשר הגוף שכל הנידון עליו הוא רק לאסור מדין כוס עיקרין שאין לאסור כיון שיעבור ממילא.

והנה לולא דמסתפינא הייתי אומר דכוס של עיקרין שאסור הוא דוקא כשנעשה ע"י זה סריס באבריו, ל"מ כשנעשה ע"י זה היכר קלקול בהאברים ממש, אלא אף הקלקול שלא יכול להתקשות כראוי שהוא ג"כ קלקול, אבל אם הוא כוס עיקרין כזה שאינו עושה שום קלקול אלא שהסיר כח החיות בהזרע אבל הוא מתקשה כראוי ויכול לבעול כמתחלה ליכא איסור דאין זה ענין סירוס כלל. ומשמע לי זה מהא דשבת ריש דף קי"א שמצד הא דארחב"א א"ר יוחנן דהכל מודים במסרס אחר מסרס שהוא חייב אוסר נמי לסריס לשתות כוס עיקרין והזכיר זה הב"ש /אהע"ז סי' ה'/ ס"ק י"ג שכתב ואפילו אם הוא סריס אסור, דבשלמא אם הכוס עיקרין עושה איזה שינוי בהאברים אף רק השינוי שאינו מתקשה שייך לאסור גם לסריס דהא מסרס אחר מסרס אסור ואף אם כוס עיקרין הוא רק מדרבנן אסרו כעין דאורייתא, אבל אם הכוס עיקרין אינו עושה שום שינוי בהאברים רק שעושה שאינו מוליד הרי נמצא שבסריס אינו עושה כלום שבלא"ה הא אינו מוליד, ואין לומר שאיירי הגמרא בסריס חמה שיש לו רפואה ובהכוס עיקרין עושה שלא יהיה לו רפואה, דהא האיסור אמר בגמ' שהוא מדין מסרס אחר מסרס שהוא דין הנאמר במעוך וכתות שאין לו רפואה אף אם נעשה ע"י חולי או אף נולד כן. וניחא לפ"ז מה שזקן היה מותר לשתות כוס עיקרין כדאיתא בשבת שם /דף קי"א/ דהוא זקן כזה שלא מתקשה שוב שנמצא שהכוס עיקרין לא עשה כלום ורק שהקשה מר' יוחנן שאיכא רפואות לזקן שיתקשה וע"י הכוס עיקרין לא יועילו הרפואות שלכן אסור. ועיין ברש"י שכתב אלמא זקן מוליד ונראה פשוט שלאו דוקא שאף אם יחזירו הרפואות רק להתקשות שיוכל לבעול ולא להוליד נמי היה אסור מאחר דמועיל הכוס עיקרין בהאבר שלא מתקשה דלא גרע ממסרס אחר מסרס ועוד כ"ש שיש לאסור, אך האמת נקט דגם מוליד. ועיין בתוס' שתירצו הכא לא שייך למיסר משום מסרס אחר מסרס דזקנה לאו סירוס הוא שלא מובן כלל לכאורה דכי האיסור הוא דוקא בסירוס אחר סירוס הא בשלם ודאי אסור וממסרס אחר מסרס ראיה שאף באין ראוי להוליד אסרה תורה לחתוך ולקלקל אותם אברים מגזה"כ וא"כ כ"ש זקן, ועיין ברשב"א שהקשה זה ותירץ דאפשר רק בבחור שכמותו מוליד וזה מסרסו אין ניכר שהיה סריס תחלה ונראה דמסרסו עכשיו ולא בזקן שניכר, ופירושו דחוק, דמן התורה לא ניליף זקן לומר שעל אלו אברים הקפידה תורה ואולי סובר שבעי טעם, וגם זה שלא ניכר ונדמה לאינשי דמסרסו עכשיו שהוא כמין גזירה נמי הוא טעם, א"כ ודאי הוא דוקא כשעשה הכוס עיקרין קלקול בהאברים ממש ששייך לטעות שבכוס עיקרין נעשה הסירוס שרואין בו. והנכון כדבארתי. וזריקה זו דבשבילה לא יוליד ששה חדשים הרי אינו עושה שום קלקול דהא יוכל לבעול כמתחלה בקישוי אבר רק שמחליש וממית החיות בזרע שלו וכדומה לזה שזה מסתבר שלא היה נאסר לפ"ז אפילו כשהיה נעשה סריס לעולם.

ואולי כן הוא כוונת הרמ"א בסעיף י"ג /אהע"ז סי' ה'/ שכתב מותר ליטול כרבלתו של תרנגול אף על גב דמסתרס ע"י זה וכל כיוצא בזה דלא עביד כלום באברי הזרע, שתמוה טובא כדהקשה בט"ז סק"ח ובהגר"א ס"ק ל"א שההיתר דנטילת כרבלתו א"ר אשי בשבת דף ק"י משום שמונעו מתשמיש משום רמות רוחא הוא דנקיטא ליה דמשמע דאם היה נעשה סריס היה אסור אף שלא עביד המעשה באברי הזרע, וה"ה דהיו יכולין להקשות ממשקה כוס עיקרין שאסור אך דעדיפא הקשו מאותו הדין עצמו. אבל אין כוונת הרמ"א שמצריך לעשות מה שעושה לסרס באברי הזרע דזה ודאי לא צריך דאף כשעושה ע"י אברים אחרים אם נעשה מזה סריס אסור, אבל כוונתו הוא דנטילת הכרבלתא לא עשה שום שינוי באברי הזרע דמה שלא ירצה לשמש הוא רק משום שמתאבל על שניטל הודו, דאם מה שלא משמש היה זה משום שנעשה שינוי באברי הזרע ומחמת זה פסק ממנו כח התאוה לתשמיש היה אסור. וממש כן הוא בשתיית כוס עיקרין להרמ"א שאיסורו הוא משום שעושה שינוי באברי הזרע אבל אם יהיה כוס עיקרין כזה שלא עביד שינוי באברי הזרע יהיה מותר לשתות כוס עיקרין כזה. ולפ"ז לא שייך כלל לחוש בהזריקה אף אם היה נעקר לעולם. אבל אף שמוכרח זה לדעתי כיון שלא נמצא חלוק זה בפירוש בפוסקים לא הייתי סומך ע"ז, אבל מ"מ אין לאסור הזריקה כיון שיעבור זה ממילא בלא שום רפואה כעבור הששה חדשים כדלעיל.

ועיין בחת"ס אה"ע ח"א סימן י"ז ד"ה והנה תוס' סוטה שכתב ראיה שהתוס' סברי דהתחלה בידי אדם ע"י כוס עיקרין כיון שאין עושה מעשה בכלי ההולדה עצמם מיקרי בידי שמים, אף שנתבטל עי"ז כח אברי ההולדה כמו בזקן ומותר בקהל, אף שלרבא יבמות דף ע"ט נחשב זקן קודם המיתה סריס חמה, שא"כ בידי אדם שהיה נעשה כמו בסמוך למיתה שזה נעשה ע"י כוס עיקרין היה לן לאסור, ואם ע"י כוס עיקרין ראוי לבעול ליכא ראיה, אלמא דמפרשי כדבארתי שכוס עיקרין מבטל כח האברים. 

Does anybody have any sources? This is not a theoretical question