Wednesday, April 28, 2021
Haredi ‘rabbi’ accused of being a covert Messianic missionary
https://www.jpost.com/israel-news/haredi-rabbi-accused-of-being-a-covert-messianic-missionary-666517
Allegations have been made that an ultra-Orthodox ‘rabbi’ who admitted to being a Messianic missionary in 2014 has continued to cling to the Messianic movement & operate as a covert missionary.
Reform rabbinic giant disciplined for inappropriate relationships now accused of ‘sexually predatory behavior’
https://forward.com/news/468535/reform-cover-up-rabbi-sheldon-zimmerman-sexually-predatory-behavior/
Rabbi Sheldon Zimmerman, who was senior rabbi at Central from 1972 to 1985, resigned his position as president of Hebrew Union College-Jewish Institute of Learning in 2000 after the Reform movement’s Central Conference of American Rabbis ruled that his relationships had broken its rules. But neither CCAR or HUC provided details of the misconduct at the time, leaving the impression that Zimmerman had simply had consensual affairs, and he went on to serve as vice president of the Birthright Israel program and rabbi of the Jewish Center of the Hamptons.
Tuesday, April 27, 2021
A haven for paedophiles: The ultra-Orthodox settlement where Malka Leifer hides
“She carried on molesting children here after she was freed! They let her return here, to my home. To my town!”
Leifer's psychiatric defense
https://ajn.timesofisrael.com/extremely-discouraging/
A PSYCHIATRIST who is due to be called as an expert witness by Malka Leifer’s defence team has previously stated that the former principal of Melbourne’s Adass Israel school “never committed the crimes” and that that she was being pursued by a “lynch mob”.
Dr Brian Trappler of New York, who gave evidence in 2015 that Leifer was not fit to face extradition proceedings, is scheduled to testify on Wednesday night (Australian time).
When asked how he knew she was innocent, one of his responses was that those calling for her extradition didn’t look frum.
“Just looking at their pictures and listening to their comments should give you an idea that this is not a Heimeshe or Chareidi crowd,” he wrote.
He likened them to the Women of the Wall group in Israel, and wrote that there is a “a cultural war between the Women of the Wall against a chareidi grandmother who left the shtetle to support her husband who’s spent his entire life learning in Kollel”.
Trappler also argued on Facebook that people shouldn’t sign a petition calling for Leifer’s extradition.
“I suggest that before the lynch-mob commits the ultimate crime of Mesira (reporting someone to secular authorities) they pause to realize that this case is not what you’ve been told.”
However Australian rabbinic authorities, and others across the world, disagree with Trappler.
“[The Rabbinic Council of Victoria] affirms its halachic position that the prohibitions of mesirah (reporting crimes to the civil authorities) and arka’ot (adjudication in civil courts) do not apply in cases of abuse,” the Rabbinic Council of Victoria stated in 2010.
Chris Wallace Repeatedly Grills Kevin McCarthy on Trump’s Jan. 6 Rage Call
Days after the deadly Capitol riot, McCarthy said on the House floor that Trump “bears responsibility” for the violence, adding that the then-president “should have immediately denounced the mob when he saw what was unfolding.” At the same time, while saying Trump’s actions deserved a congressional response, he declared that he didn’t support impeachment.
Rackman's aguna solution is unacceptable. RabbiJachter
Even if Rabbi Rackman's idea were acceptable in theory, its implementation contains a significant practical problem. It is often very difficult to formally produce incontrovertible evidence that someone physically abused his spouse (see Rama, E.H. 154:3). Proving that someone had an abuser personality is even more difficult, if not impossible. Similarly, it is exceedingly difficult to prove that one who denies his wife a get had a sadistic personality at the time of marriage. At the very least, the dayanim must see psychological records documenting these tendencies from before the marriage. In Rav Moshe's responsa regarding impotent and institutionalized husbands, official medical records proved the women's claims. On the other hand, The Jerusalem Report (August 3, 1998) disclosed that Rabbi Moses Morgenstern issues his rulings merely based on the woman's word, undoubtedly an unacceptable practice.3See, for example, Teshuvot Noda Biy'hudah (vol. 1, E.H. 54), cited in Pitchei Teshuvah (E.H. 157:9). Rabbis can rarely obtain private medical files in today's litigious society, for doctors do not generally release these records to clergy with the same ease that they may have done in Rav Moshe's time.
Rabbi Emanuel Rackman, champion of halachic justice, dies at 98
Using disputable Talmudic precedents for annulment, he dissolved over 100 marriages without the husband's agreement. Rackman admitted that one of his goals was to prod the rabbinical establishment out of its slumber on this painful issue, yet insisted that the Bet Din's technical solutions remained within the halachic envelope. Rackman said that "the neglect of agunot by the rabbinic establishment is alienating people from Judaism. I am fighting for the glory of Torah and the halachic system, and my solutions will do more for the future of Halacha than the stringency of its mandates. I certainly feel that I can meet my Maker on this!" Unfortunately, Rackman's Bet Din was mismanaged, and Rackman failed to substantiate his Bet Din's actions in a learned teshuva, a formal halachic position paper (although others have now begun to do so, most notably Prof. Aviad Hacohen, dean of Shaarei Mishpat Law College.) Nevertheless, his legacy on the treatment of agunot is considerable, and I believe that Halacha will yet come around to his view.
Monday, April 26, 2021
Mesira permitted for danger to community
Rambam (Hilchos Chovel u’Mazik 8:11): …. Similarly all those who distress the community and harm it – it is permitted to hand them over to the non‑Jewish government to be beaten, imprisoned and punished. However if the person is only disturbing an individual and not the community – it is prohibited to hand him over. It is also prohibited to cause the loss of the property of the moser – even though it permitted to cause the death of the moser himself. That is because his property belongs to his heirs.
Zealots
Toldos Aaron Rebb (BaKehila 14th of Tammuz 5768 page 12): Concerning Rav Amram Blau, one saw that in reality that all the cracks in the wall of Yiddishkeit caused him great pain. His protests were an expression of his love of Jews and his fear of G-d. It hurt him that another Jew would sin and that pain - caused by his concern for others - brought him to protest. In contrast, the kano'im of today are motivated by the desire to destroy. They wake up in the morning with the single concern of what they can destroy that day. Their heads are not focused on serving G-d or how they can increase the honor of Heaven. They spend their days obsessed with wall posters and slander of others. There are no great men and leaders of Israel that they don't slander. This is not kana'us! This is the lowest form of degenerate personality. Someone who truly want to be concerned with G-d's honor knows that before any activity it is required to first ask a posek and talmid chachom to clarify if this particular activity is permitted by the Torah or not. We are Jews and therefore our path has to be that of the Shulchan Aruch. These hotblooded young men mistakenly think that their acts of destruction magnify the glory of G-d. I am telling you that this is not the path of kana'us! That is because true zealotry comes only from the motivation of truly loving Jews. When a Jew is hurt by the sins of another Jew he is not allowed to make any public response without first asking the guidance of gedolim concerning possible actions and he must submit to their views. However we have never seen before the approach of these modern zealots. These men are immersed in their evil ways and their sole concern is how to cause damage.
False court testimony to protect Jew from going to jail
Steipler Rav (Within the Domain of Gedolei Torah Vol 2 page 557-560): The rav of Komemiyus, Rav Binyamin Mendelson approached Rav Shlomo Lorenz concerning someone who had committed a crime in the past. Then he had been sentenced to a number of years of jail – but had been placed on probation and wasn’t imprisoned. However the person eventually committed the crime again and now was being tried a second time. Rav Mendelson said that he knew this person and felt he deserved mercy - especially for his wife and children. Therefore he said there was an obligation to try to keep him out of jail - not only for the sake of his family - but because it was obvious that being in jail with hardened criminals would not serve to rehabilitate him. Therefore Rav Mendelson asked me to testify as a character witness at the trial to try and stop the jail sentence.
Rav Lorenz told him that while normally he would readily agree to whatever he asked. However in this case he knew that his testifying in court to aid a criminal would become public knowledge. This would cause a chilul HaShem because it would create the impression that the representative of the Torah world not only identified with the criminal but also offered him assistance. Therefore he told Rav Mendelson that he wanted to consult with the Steipler Rav before he did anything. Rav Mendelson agreed but requested that the Vishnitzer Rebbe also be consulted.
When Rav Lorenz told the story to the Steipler Rav, the Steipler screamed, “A Jew who sins and repeats that sin, it is better that he be punished in this world and not – G‑d forbid – in the World to Come.” He explained, “The punishment in this world is minor compared to what happens in the World to Come. Furthermore if you succeed in stopping the jail sentence he will continue to repeatedly commit this crime. It is better that he receive his punishment and perhaps learn self‑restraint…In addition if I give you permission and you testify for his benefit it is obvious that every newspaper and all the public media will publicize the matter and it will also be a chilul HaShem when he sins again…”
Rav Lorenz then went to the Vishnitzer Rebbe and told him what the Steipler Rav had said. The Vishnitzer Rebbe replied, “There is no question that the Steipler Rav is correct in every detail and I absolutely agree with him. But there is also the concept of ‘Going beyond the letter of the law.’ There is also the attribute of mercy. Therefore I think there is reason to have mercy on his wife and children…However I only have one problem – the issue of chilul HaShem which the Steipler mentioned…. Therefore you need to find a way of testifying that won’t cause chilul HaShem.”
Rav Lorenz told the Steipler Rav the words of the Vishnitzer Rebbe. He gave a long sigh and said, “It is possible to do as the Vishnitzer Rebbe requested, even though my opinion is that the person should be punished rather than be helped. However this can only be done on the condition that the testimony is not public so that it won’t –G‑d forbid – cause chilul HaShem.”
Rav Lorenz complied with their wishes and contacted the judge and told him he had a highly irregular request to make that he was doing on the behalf of gedolim to avoid chilul HaShem. He met with the judge and told him that the Vishnitzer Rebbe asked for mercy for the criminal not to give him any jail time at all. The judge replied that since the criminal had violated probation that was impossible. Furthermore he agreed with the Steipler Rav that if the criminal were not imprisoned he would continue committing the crime. So he did not see how he could simply set the man free.
Rav Lorenz told the judge that Rav Mendelson had said that the criminal would not go unpunished. Rav Mendelson said that the rabbis would punish him according in the manner that was normal in these cases such as forty days of fasting and other such things. Rav Mendelson felt that this punishment would be more beneficial in rehabilitating the criminal than being sent to prison with hardened criminals. While the judge agreed with this he said he still had the major problem that freeing him was clearly against the law. Rav Lorenz told him that he was sure that the judge would figure out something – which he did. The criminal was again placed on probation.
However as predicted the criminal was not able to withstand temptation and he committed the crime again. This time he was sent to jail where he died.
Torah law can be harmful to society
Aruch HaShulchan (C.M. 2:1-3): 1) Even though the Jewish court does not judge cases involving capital punishment or flogging or fines outside of Israel – but if the beis din sees that the times require it - because there is a breakdown in law and order – then it is permitted. Everything depends on the judgment of how serious the problem is. Not only can the court judge these cases when there is community lawlessness but even when a single individual sins it is permitted to punish him if they think it is necessary - as long as they do it for pure motivation. This ability to judge these cases in emergency situations is even when there are not valid witnesses but only a reasonable basis that it is true and constant rumors are heard when there are no enemies who would create them. Thus if the times require that this case be tried it must be done if we have the ability. That is because if we insist that everything be done in accordance with the laws of the Torah - and we require 2 valid adult witnesses and proper warning not to commit the crime – the result will be that the world is destroyed. In fact Jerusalem was not destroyed except for the fact that the courts insisted in totally compliance with the Torah law [Rashba 3:393]. Thus in times of need, the courts have the right to administer corporal punishment and to give monetary punishments according to what they see is needed to correct the problems of society. If the litigant is a powerful person then he can be reported to the secular government to be tried and the secular authorities will order him to comply with what the Jewish religion requires of him. Anyone who has the power to make a protective fence to the Torah and doesn’t do it, he will have no protective fence either in this world or the next nor will he have descendants or remnants in his dwelling [Beis Yosef citing Zohar]. Similarly we are obligated to make sure that there shouldn’t be anyone with thoughts of rebellion – even unexpressed against the government of the Czar and his leaders. Our Sages said that G‑d made us take an oath not to rebel against the governments which rule us (Kesubos 111a)… 2) This ability to judge and punish - not according to the laws of the Torah - is only for the greatest Torah scholars or for the community leaders. That is because community leaders have the same power as that of the Great Sanhedrin. Thus in our days the obligation is on the rav and the community leaders to fix the breaches in society with all of their ability. Thus every tax they impose, the community must comply and pay it – even though it means that some benefit from it while others suffer a loss. That is because this is important to correct community problems or take care of some other urgent need. Whoever interferes with this – is considered like Yeravam ben Nevat. One should not go against the decisions of community leaders even if there are scholars who support the opposition. That is because it is likely that those who are opposed to the community leaders have no fear of heaven. Investigate and you find it to be true. 3) However any matter which is not needed for the welfare of society or for emergency correction – the community leaders have no power to deal with against the wishes of those involved. All they can do is try and persuade the community to follow traditional practices or to collectively accept a particular action. Thus if a practice is firmly accepted by the community, the community leaders can force compliance with it…. Without either being an emergency matter for the community or having been fully accepted by the community – the leaders cannot do anything beyond the Torah law when there is gain for one party but loss for a second party. Alternatively if the community has an accepted practice that the leaders can do what ever they think is good or the community has fully accepted that the leaders can do whatever they wish – then in fact they community leaders can do whatever they see fit even if there is benefit to one party but loss to a second party. The leaders of the community should have their hearts directed to the desires of heaven and G‑d should help them. That is because someone who wants to achieve perfection receives Divine assistance.
Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 2:1): Every court – even those that do not have semicha from Israel – if they see that the see that the people is corrupted by sin (and thus it is an emergency situation) can issue judgments whether concerning capital punishment or financial matters or any other punishments even without testimony according to Torah standards. If the transgressor is a powerful person than it is possible to punish him through the agency of non-Jews. Furthermore the court has the power to appropriate his money and to do with it what they see fit to strengthen the community. All the activities of the court need to be for the sake of heaven. This license to go beyond the letter of the law is specifically only for the greatest rabbis of the generation or the community leaders. It has been the practice in every place that the community leaders have the status similar to that of the Sanhedrin in that they can give beatings and punishments as well as appropriate a person’s property – all according to the local practice. Even though there are those poskim which disagree and say that the local communities authorities do not have such powers but can only pressure the community according to the local practices or their actions need to be agreed upon by everyone. However according to these poskim they have no power to make any changes in law in situations where there is benefit to one party and loss to another or to appropriate someone’s money without his agreement. Nevertheless one should follow the practices of the city. And surely these powers exist in fact everyone member of the community accepts that the leaders have these powers. The achronim mention in their responsa that some who is deserving of lashes should give 40 gold coins as a substitute for the 40 lashes. This is not according to the letter of the law but is only an emergency measure. Therefore the court has the emergency power to administer lashes or to take money according to what they see are the needs of the times (migder milsa).