Sex and kiruv: Problem of the charismatic rabbi

This post appeared 5 years ago but it is relevant to our current discussion. It is also a chapter in my Child and Domestic Abuse volume I.

In our previous discussion concerning mikve ladies not accepting the validity of a convert or wife - an associated problem was brought up. This, like child abuse, is something which strikes at the heart of our spirituality and Torah values and yet is just being ignored or swept under the carpet.

There was a case in my neighborhood several years ago that I want to use as an illustration of the problem. Some of the facts have been altered simply for poetic license but the essential facts are correct. I am bringing this up simply because it illustrates well what I am wrestling with in my critique of religious society - there may or not be a direct connection with the previous discussion.

There was a very well known kiruv personality. Perhaps you could say that he was a poster boy for kiruv. Warm and wise and very articulate in expressing the wisdom of the Torah. He was much in demand as a speaker - and as a consequence he spent much time flying between speaking engagement. Wherever he went he brought the light of Torah. It warmed his heart to see all the people he was influencing and he was a role model of humility and service of G-d. One day he was flying the long and boring stretch across the Atlantic when the stewardess asked him if he needed anything. He realized that she might be Jewish so he engaged her in light banter - seeing if she might be susceptible to becoming frumer. He mentioned that he was a kiruv rabbi and that she probably should avoid him since he was a fundamentalist ultra-orthodox rabbi. She had never met a charming and intelligent religious fanatic so she decided to play along. It turns out she wasn't Jewish - but she really enjoyed the discussion. The conversation deepened and she was really taken with this man. There was something about him that was different than all the men she had ever met. He of course was in this totally leshem shamayim. The fact that she was stunningly beautiful and was quite intelligent and asked really good questions - just made it more of an interesting challenge. By the end of the flight they exchanged phone numbers and promised to stay in contact.

To make a long story short - he realized that she really made him feel alive. It was a wondrous thing watching her come up with a really deep question in the Ramchal he told her and the joy on her face when he took the question and connected with chassidic stories and kabbalah. It was an amazing thing realizing how much this beautiful woman benefited from everything he said. He realized that he once had that relationship with his wife of 20 years - but they hadn't had a deeper issue than - whose coming for Shabbos - for at least 10 years. Besides his wife wasn't so beautiful anymore.

After much soul searching he realized that for the sake of his spirituality and hers he needed to drop his wife and marry this stewardess. The stewardess had readily agreed to convert - to marry him. Nonetheless it wasn't easy breaking his wife's heart and destroying his kids - but he was willing to make the sacrifice for the sake of G-d. After all spiritual growth is the prime value and all his wife could do was have babies and keep house. This woman pushed him to spiritual heights and understanding. He just couldn't believe the insights coming out of his mouth when he spoke with her. He would make a break with his old family and he was young enough to start a new family.

He did in fact divorce his wife, the stewardess converted and they married. The wife, family and community was totally devastated. But he moved elsewhere and is happily starting life over again - leshem Shamayim of course.

This story is not rare unfortunately. It goes on all the time in kiruv or with teachers in seminaries. The first recorded case was in fact Zimri - who was the first kiruv rabbi who fell in the line of duty - trying to convert the non-Jewish princess. I spoke to a kiruv rabbi this morning and he says that he has many such stories - but no one is even addressing the issue.

Anyway to tie this back to our original discussion. If you were good friends with the first wife and were asked to supervise the tevila of the second wife - would you be justified in saying no?

Or would you simply point out that a man can legitimately divorce a wife for any reason and thus according to the halacha - there is absolutely nothing wrong with what he did. Perhaps you would even admire (even be jealous) of this man who was willing to sacrifice so much for spiritual growth?

Lashon Harah: Informing his students or children of bad deeds of others

Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Issure lashon harah klall 4:10): Despite this, if you see bad character traits in another person such as conceit, anger or other bad traits or he neglects his Torah studies etc, it is correct to tell this to his son or his students to warn them not to associate with that person in order that they not learn from his deeds. That is because the  basis for the Torah prohibiting  lashon harah – even if it is true – is if it is done to degrade the other and to rejoice in his debasement. However if the speaker's intent is to protect others so that they don't learn from his bad deed – it is clear that it is permitted and in fact it is a mitzva to disclose this person's actions. However in these types of cases it would seem that it is also a mitzva for the speaker to explain the reason why he is speaking negatively about another person in order that the listeners don't make the mistake of thinking that these types of comments are typically permitted. In addition that he should not be viewed as a hypocrite  since at other times he has said  it is prohibited to speak badly of others – even if it is the truth. (I will explain this further in Klall 9 halacha 5 that it is a great mitzva for parents and teachers to give instructions against this sin of lashon harah.) And yet now they see their parent or teacher speaking lashon harah himself. Similarly this halacha is mentioned in Shulchan Aruch (Y.D. 244:22 [and in the Taz 92:22]  concerning cases which somone permits something that is normally prohibited such as Erev Shabbos – that he needs to explain why he is doing it.

---

[1] חפץ חיים (הלכות אסורי לשון הרע - כלל ד:י):  ואף על פי כן (מא) אם רואה אדם (מב) באחד מדה מגנה, כגון, גאוה או כעס או שארי מדות רעות או שהוא בטלן מתורה וכיוצא בזה, נכון לו לספר דבר זה לבנו או לתלמידיו ולהזהירם, שלא יתחברו עמו, כדי שלא ילמדו ממעשיו, כי העקר מה שהזהירה התורה בלשון הרע, אפלו על אמת, הוא אם כונתו לבזות את חברו ולשמח לקלונו, אבל אם כונתו לשמר את חברו שלא ילמד ממעשיו (מג) פשוט דמתר ומצוה נמי איכא (גם כן יש). אך באפן זה וכיוצא בזה נראה, דמצוה להמספר לבאר הטעם, למה מספר בגנותו של חברו, כדי שלא יטעה השומע להתיר על ידו יותר מזה, וגם שלא יבוא לתמה עליו, שהוא סותר את עצמו, כי פעם יאמר לו, שאסור לספר אפלו על אמת, כמו שיתבאר לקמן בכלל ט', שמצוה רבה היא להפריש בניו הקטנים מזה העון, ועתה הוא מספר בעצמו, (וכהאי גונא איתא (וכיוצא בזה כתוב) בשלחן ערוך יורה דעה  (רמד:כב) [ט"ז צב:כב], אם הוא מתיר דבר, שיש פוסקים לאסור בערב שבת וכיוצא בזה):

Sexual relations: Prohibition of thinking of another person

This is a continuation of the discussion of chanifa - or tocho k'baro or echad b'peh  echad b'lev - the need to have consistency or integrity of inner thoughts and emotions with external behavior or speech. It is prohibited to deliberately think about another person during sexual relations or even to not know who the other person is - whether deliberately or by accident. The case of Yaakov being with Leah presents a significant problem for this. Chazal say that not having attention directed to the other person during sexual relations results in a child which is like a mamzer.

Lehoros Nosson (2:88):The poskim don't mention this and it obviously is not the halacha. Even though it is explicitly mentioned by our Sages (Pesachim 112a)A person should not cook in a pot that someone else has already used. That means that a person should not marry a divorced woman while her ex-husband is still alive. For a master said when a divorced man marries a divorced woman there are four minds in the bed. [Alternatively this applies even to marrying a widow because not all fingers are alike (euphemism meaning that she will not be satisfied sexually and will come to denigrate her new husband – Rashi)]- nevertheless it is not mentioned by poskim. In Shulchan Aruch (E.H. 119:5) it only mentions that in the case of a woman who was divorced because of licentiousness – it is not proper for a man of good reputation to marry her. And also (Shulchan Aruch E.H. 119:2) a man should strive to marry an appropriate woman. The issue of marry a divorcee is not mentioned at all despite being stated explicitly in this gemora. Obviously then the gemora is not saying halacha but simply good advice. This understanding is stated by Teshuvos Maimonious (Hilchos Avel 20) – that the gemora in Pesachim is only good advice and there is no prohibition to marry a divorcee. In fact he notes that there is no place where you will find a prohibition to marry a divorcee and such is the widespread practice of the Jewish people.  The only prohibition is where in fact  he is thinking about someone else as stated in Nedarim (20b), A person should not drink from a cup and yet have his thoughts focused on another cup – even if both women are his wives. This is also the psak of Rambam (Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 21:12), Our Sages have prohibited a person to have sexual relations with one woman while he is thinking of another woman. Nevertheless there is no prohibition to marry a divorcee while her former husband is alive because of concerns she might be thinking about him. It is simply good advice to avoid unpleasant situations – but it is not a halacha.

Nedarim(20a):Imma Shalom [wife of Rabbi Eliezer ben Hyrcanos] was asked, "Why are your children extremely beautiful? She replied to them, "I don't speak with my husband [i.e, have sexual relations- Rashi]  not at the beginning of the night or the end of the night but only as midnight. When he speaks he uncovers a tefach and covers a tefach and he acts as if he is being forced by a demon [either very forcefully like one possessed or like one afraid of a demon - Rashi]. I asked him what is the reason for this [waiting until midnight] and he replied, "In order that I not think about another woman which if I did would cause the resulting children to be like mamzerim."

Kallah(1:10): They asked Imma Shalom the wife of Rabbi Eliezar and the sister of Rabban Gamliel – "Why are your children so beautiful? And when having sexual relations – how does your husband conduct himself?" She replied to them, "He does not talk with me [i.e, have sexual relations- Rashi] at the time of the first watch or at the time of the last watch but only during the middle watch. He uncovers a tefach and covers a tefach and he acts as if he was being forced by a demon [either very forcefully like one possessed or like one afraid of a demon - Rashi]. I asked him, "What is the reason for this?'  and he replied that it was in order that he would not be thinking of another woman while having sex with her which would cause the resulting children to be like mamerim." From here they say that there are 10 children that are like mamzerim but are not actual mamzerim. The child of a Jewish slave, of a non Jewish slave, of hatred, of niddah, of nidoi, of mistakenly thinking she was another woman, of strife, of intoxication , of a wife you decided to divorce, of unknown woman and some say of sleeping woman....

Nedarim(20b): Do not go after your heart  Rabbi Yehuda HaNassi said we learn from this verse that one should not drink from this cup and be thinking about another cup. Ravina said that prohibition applies even if both of them are his wives.

Ramban(Toras HaAdam – Shaar HaAvel – Mourning): Our Sages taught (Mo'ed Kton 22a) There is a prohibition for a mourner to marry for 30 days. If his wife died it is prohibited forhim to marry another until 3 holidays have passed. Rabbi Yehuda says he can marry on the 3^rd holiday. The explanation of this distinction is that the Sages were more strict in the time for him to take another wife in order that the first wife be forgotten and he won't be thinking about the first wife while having sexual relations with the second. This prohibition is in Nedarim (20b),Do not follow after your heart – from here Rabbi Nosson learned that one should not drink from this cup and think about another woman. Ravina says this prohibition applies even if both are his wife. Furthermore it is prohibited to prevent having children that are from one of 9 prohibited relations – either a child of mixture (arbuvia) or a hated child. However if he has no children then it is permitted for him to get married immediately to avoid nullifying the command to have children. If he has small children then it is also permitted to get married immediately in order that they be taken care of.

Sefer haManhig(Perishus, Taharah, and Kedusha) Rabbi Nosson said, The verse "Not going after your heart and your eyes" is prohibiting drinking from one cup while thinking about another woman – even if both are his wife. But this seems to contradict [what Yaakov did] as it says, "It was morning and behold it was Leah". That means that he was thinking about Rachel while he was having sexual relations with Leah. But Leah didn't get pregnant that night [and thus she didn't have a child that was one of the 9 prohibited relations]...<

Rambam(Hilchos Issurei Bi'ah 21:12): Our Sages prohibited having sexual relations with one woman while he is thinking about another woman.

Shulchan Aruch(O.C. 240:2): A person should not drink from one cup while he is thinking about another cup – even if he is married to both. [while having sexual relations with one woman he should not be thinking about another Magen Avraham O.C. 240:6).

The sick reality of gittin today

I recently received a letter concerning a divorce in America. The letter writer noted that  the beis din sent him a letter which said (this is my paraphrasing) :

A plan was being developed - if you had resisted giving the get - that would have prevented you from seeing your children for many years and you would have been severely beaten and tortured.

As the recent indictments of Mendel Epstein and associates have shown - the above was not a rare event and it was apparently common knowledge amongst American rabbis and those dealing with gittin. Why was it tolerated? 1) Was it simply an acknowledgment that justice for women requires ignoring halacha and secular law? 2) Was it too lucrative for rabbis and therefore they don't want to disturb another rabbi's parnossa? 3) Perhaps the rabbis were afraid of being called a moser or suffer other sanctions. The answer obviously is all of the above.

Furthermore while such activity is clearly illegal according to the law of the land (dina d'malchuso) it is also illegal according to halacha and produced an invalid get. Even if you want to argue that beis din has the ability to administer this type of punishment - I think that is only a community beis din which is appointed and supported by the community - such as existed in Europe. However in most cases the beis din in America that deal with these cases is an ad hoc entity which is not connected to the community and is certainly not authorized by it.

Daughters inheriting: Forcing the involvement of secular courts instead of beis din

Friday night in the minyan I attended which is 99% kollel guys  - a dayan had been chosen to be the guest speaker before Maariv. He went into great detail describing the suffering and cruelty that he has observed when frum people insist on following the Torah law that wife and daughters do not inherit. In particular he mentioned a case in Bnei Brak involving one of the most distinguished families where a fight has continued for 30 years over whether the daughters receive part of the inheritance. 

His solution shocked me. It was to ignore the Torah and rabbinic law in these cases and instead either bypass beis din and go to the secular courts or extort a settlement from the male heirs. He said that in Israel if the daughters or wife do not sign the will then beis din has no power to deal with it and it automatically goes to secular court where there is an equitable distribution of the inheritance. Therefore he said that they should not sign the will or alternatively they should extort the mail heir and only sign on the condition that 50% of the estate goes to them.

Not only did no one stone him but no one even made a comment. Is this standard procedure these days?

While Rav Moshe Feinstein and others describe ways or bypassing the Torah requirements for inheritance - I am not aware of any call to not only ignore Torah and Rabbinic law but also to deliberately bypass beis din in favor of secular courts.

Judaism and Psychology: Saving a suicidal gay man - by reconcilling him with his estranged lover?

[update - added Rav Sternbuch's teshuva and Igros Moshe and additional scenarios There are times when religion and psychotherapy conflict. The following seems to be such a case.

A psychotherapist was dealing with a depressed young man who had been contemplating suicide. Many things had gone wrong in his life and he was having trouble coping. However the depression got significantly worse after he broke up with his male lover and the therapist became very concerned that he would actually kill himself. 

The therapist's supervisor suggest that it would be beneficial if the therapist tried to bring about a reconciliation with the lover in joint therapy sessions. Obviously attempting such a reconciliation raises serious halachic questions. Can the therapist be a facilitator for the client's sinful behavior - i.e., is this a problem of livnei ivair or mesaya lidvar aveira? Does the possible saving of his life outweigh other considerations such as his increased likelihood of sinning with his lover if they were reconciled?

The therapist's rabbi in fact poskened that it was prohibited to try and reconcile the client with his former lover. Two reasons were given 1) It is prohibited to facilitate another person's sinning (mesayea lidvar aveira)  2) One can not cure with prohibited acts (ein merapim b'issurim). Several days later the client in fact committed suicide.

However contrary to the rabbis' psak, I think in fact that attempting reconciliation would be permitted. 

I once asked Rav Sternbuch about the permissibility of therapy with a couple that did not keep taharas mishpacha. He cited the Chazon Ish as the source of a principle that if the discord reduces their sinning that it would be prohibited to provide them with therapy. However he noted that it is not unusual for couples today to commit adultery. Thus in fact there would be no reduction in sinning if there were marital discord and thus he said that therapy was permitted. [see teshuva below]

In this case, it is reasonable to assume that the frequency of homosexual acts would not be reduced by not reconciling them. There was  no reason he would not find other homosexuals to sin with. It was also reasonable that he would die without this therapy - so that would make it pikuach nefesh. The proposed therapy was not to cure the depression by telling him to have homosexual relations - rather the therapy was to reconcile him with his former lover. Thus  this therapy would only increase the likelihood of sinning with his lover- but not necessarily change the actual amount of sin.  Finally therapy would reduce the likelihood of suicide which is  considered murder. It is important to note that Rav Moshe Feinstein [listed below] and other poskim indicate that there is a major difference whether the facilitator to a prohibited relations is doing his facilitation as part of a paid job or whether he does it free.

Some related questions. 1) I was asked by a man who was committing adultery to help reduce his anxiety and guilt feelings. 2) A father and adult daughter feel guilty about their incestual relationship 3) A married woman wants to stop feeling guilty about being a prostitute because she really needs the money. 4) An unmarried couple are having shalom bayis problems which interfere with their sexual relations. 5) A teenager has anxiety about a gender change operations and wants therapy to go through with it. 6) Wife wants husband to join group where spouses are switched periodically 7) Abortion doctor wants help overcoming guilt. 8) Doctor has trouble pulling the plug on "brain dead" patients. 8) can a lawyer help a business deal which violates halacha? 9) can a secretary produce a contract for a business deal that violates halacha?

See also Igros Moshe (E.H. IV 87.1) concerning being a shadchan for non-observant couples Also that no rabbi in America can get a job as rav of a shul if he won't marry non-observant couples. He notes that getting paid his is a heter. I don't see a difference between the rabbi who marries couples who he knows won't keep taharas mishpacha and a therapist who promotes shalom bayis in forbidden relationships.

תשובות והנהגות כרך א סימן תעו

שאלה: יהודי תפוס בבית סוהר האם להשתדל להוציאו משם אף שיעבור בזה על איסור נדה באשתו

שמעתי ממקור מוסמך שביקשו מרבינו החזו"א זצ"ל להשתדל ולפעול עבור אחד שנידון למאסר לזמן ארוך, ושאל האם הוא שומר על טהרת המשפחה, והשיבו לו שלא שומר ונסתלק ולא רצה לעסוק בשחרורו, וראויים הדברים לגאון בישראל כמותו! 

וכיוצא בו אני נוהג בעזהשי"ת כשמבקשים ממני לסדר שלום בית אצל חפשיים אני נמנע כיון שמסייע בזה לעבור על איסור נדה, וכבר דרשו חז"ל (שבועות מז ב) לא תנאף לא תנאיף לא לסייע לניאוף.

ויש להטעים הדבר שבעצם במ"ע קיימא לן (כתובות פו ב) מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, ופירשו המפרשים דלפני שעבר גם על ל"ת כופין עד שתצא נפשו למונעו, (עיין בר"ן חולין קל"ב: דגם בל"ת קודם שעבר מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו כדי שלא יעבור, וכן פשיטא ליה לרע"א בחידושי כתובות פ"ו. דגם בל"ת אמרינן הך דינא דכופין אותו ומיהו הרמב"ן בשיר השירים ד', י"א כתב דרק במצות עשה כופין דחמיר מל"ת ומכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו, משא"כ בל"ת. וכ"נ בקצוה"ח סי' ג' סק"ב במשובב שם). ואם כן כאן אף שסובל במאסר, הלוא ראוי לו לסבול כן שמונעים אותו בכך לעבור על איסורי כרת דנדה שדינו כעריות. 

ולפי זה בנידון דידן אף שגזרו עליו מאסר חמש שנים אין אנו מצווין להשתדל לשחררו, ולהיפך טוב שישב שמה ולא יעבור תדיר על איסור כרת ר"ל, ואם היתה השאלה באה לפני בי"ד כשידינו תקיפה, היו כופין אותו בכהאי גוונא אם אינו רוצה לשמוע, שהיו סוגרין אותו בחדר שלא יבוא לידי עבירה.

אמנם השאלה שבנידון שלפנינו הוא בתינוק שנשבה שלא נתגדל על ברכי התורה ודינו כאנוס, ועיין בגרש"ז (סוף הלכות ריבית) שאפילו שומע אחר כך דת ישראל עדיין הוא כאנוס הואיל ונתגדל בין הנכרים, ויש לומר כיון שהוא כאנוס איסורו קיל אף שפוגם, ובהדי כבשי דרחמנא למה לן לייסרו במאסר שנים רבות, וכיון שכן אנו מצווין לשחררו שאין דינו כמומר להכעיס, וראוי לשחררו ולהשפיע עליו לחזור בתשובה, ולא נמנע מלהצילו אף שיעבור בזה איסורים, כיון שאינו אלא בגדר אנוס. 

אמנם כל זה הוא אם הנידון היה האם להכניסו במאסר כדי להבטיח שלא יכשל באיסור נדה ר"ל, ובזה יש לצדד לכאורה דאם דינו כתינוק שנשבה שאנוס אין עלינו לייסרו במאסר שנים רבות, אבל כאן שנידון שניפעל לשחררו שאז חוזר לביתו הרי דומה כאלו אנו מאכילין אותו בידים איסור נדה ופשיטא שאסור, וגם איסור נדה דינו כעריות ולא שייך בזה אנוס שאפילו באונס יהרג ואל יעבור וז"פ.

ובעיקר הדבר אם מוטל עלינו ליסרו במאסר לכתחילה שלא יכשל באיסור נדה אף שלא ע"י בי"ד ואין ידינו תקיפה יש לתלות במחלוקת הקצוה"ח ונתה"מ בח"מ (סימן ג') אם דין מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו נאמר רק על בית דין או על כל יחיד, (ועיין יש"ש ב"ק פ"ג סי' ט' דכל אחד מישראל רשאי להכות חבירו ולהפרישו מאיסור עי"ש ובשו"ת חת"ס חו"מ סי' קע"ז) ויש לומר שצריך בית דין שיש בזה גם גדר עונש למונעו וכעין רודף שממיתין אותו שהוא גם בגדר עונש, וכן תלוי אם הא דמכין אותו הוא בגדר עונש וא"כ בשבת אין מכין אותו עד שתצא נפשו שאין עונשין בשבת, עיין מ"ל (פרק כ"ד דשבת) אם מצילין מן העבירה הבא על ערוה בשבת בנפשו של רודף, משום שאין עונשין בשבת ע"ש, אבל לשחררו דומה למאכילו בידים כמ"ש ואסור. 

ולמעשה אמרתי שיציעו לאשתו שמוכנים לפעול לשחררו אבל רק בתנאי שישמרו התורה כולל איסור נדה, ואף שאין בהבטחתם משקל רב, מ"מ אם יבטיחו באמת ובתמימות נפעל כדי לשחררו, ואולי גם נשפיע עליו בזה לשוב לצור מחצבתו שקל יותר בחוץ, אבל בלי הבטחה מצידם לשמור טהרת המשפחה לא מצאתי מקום להקל. ומיהו בארץ ישראל פעילים גם בבתי סוהר להחזירם לדרך התורה והמצוה, ולהיפך דוקא שמה רבים שבים בתשובה, ודאי שם יש לעשות כרבינו החזו"א זצ"ל לא לשחררו לסייע לו בזה לעבור על איסור נדה.

Do talmidei chachomim really insult and belittle each other?

I just received this letter which raises an important issue - the negative actions and comments which talmidei chachomim make about each other. It is a timely issue since during sefira Rabbi Akiva lost 24 thousand students because they did not treat each other with respect (Yevamos 62b).

There are explanations that try and show that at least the cases in the Talmud are not what they seem (Chavis Yair). That it wasn't that they insulted each other but they weren't as respectful as they should have been - and they are just judged more severely than others. However there is another approach which understands them as negative as they seem but tries to explain the purpose of the negativity.

Lichvod HaRav shlit"a

... I write to you because your Daas Torah volume is gevaldig and I have given it as a gift to numerous people. So I felt I could write to you and maybe get some directions or Mareh Mekomos.

I say some shiurim to yungerleit and one of the issues that has come up a number of times is קינטורים of the Chachomim in the Gemora. eg. at the end of Beitzah where they laughed at Rabbi Abba and many other places in Shass.

Besides for the Teshuvos Chavos Yair that the Chofetz Chaim brings at the end of the Sefer is there someone who discusses the issues at length that I could learn?

...

BeHokoroh VeRagshei Kovod

 ===============
The simple answer is that Torah learning is based on an adversarial system which involves not only proving that others are wrong but is motivated in part by jealousy and showing that others are not as good or learned or righteous as they seem. [See Berachos (27b) where the Sages are described as warriors. Rashi says that is because they try to defeat each other in halachic discussion.] Furthermore Yuma (86b) says it is a mitzva to publicize the fact that certain talmidei chachomim or tzadikim - are not as big as they appear [publicizing hypocrites]- as can be seen from the sources below.

Berachos (28b) describes a prayer before learning "Our Rabbis taught: On entering what does a man say? ‘May it be Thy will, O Lord my God, that no offence may occur through me, and that I may not err in a matter of halachah and that my colleagues may rejoice in me and that I may not call unclean clean or clean unclean, and that my colleagues may not err in a matter of halachah and that I may rejoice in them’." Rashi says that the issue of rejoicing in the mistakes of others is meant literally. [You also might want to read the Seridei Aish's letters which were published by Dr. Marc Shapiro in Torah uMadda Journal ]

In fact the present Bostoner Rebbe told me that this is one of the differences between the Torah learning of Litvaks and Chassidim and why Litvaks are generally better scholars. When Litvaks learn Torah -  they learn primarily to determine what is truth. As a result the discussions get heated and each one tries with all his ability to show he is correct and the other is wrong. In contrast Chassidim learn primarily for the sake of the mitzva of Torah learning - to understand what the seforim say -  and there is much less heat and emotion.

יבמות סב: אמרו: שנים עשר אלף זוגים תלמידים היו לו לרבי עקיבא, מגבת עד אנטיפרס, וכולן מתו בפרק אחד מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה, והיה העולם שמם, עד שבא ר"ע אצל רבותינו שבדרום, ושנאה להם ר"מ ור' יהודה ור' יוסי ורבי שמעון ורבי אלעזר בן שמוע, והם הם העמידו תורה אותה שעה. תנא: כולם מתו מפסח ועד עצרת. אמר רב חמא בר אבא, ואיתימא ר' חייא בר אבין: כולם מתו מיתה רעה. מאי היא? א"ר נחמן: אסכרה.

מהרש"א חידושי אגדות (יבמות סב:) מפני שלא נהגו כבוד זה לזה כו' ולא חש כ"א מהם על כבוד תורה של חבירו דאין כבוד אלא תורה ולכך מתו במדה זו כי היא חייך גו' ואמרו שמתו במיתת אסכרה דאפשר דכ"א דיבר לשון הרע והיה מספר בגנות חבירו וסימן ללשון הרע אסכרה כדאמרינן פרק ב"מ ואמר שמתו בין פסח לעצרת להורות שמתו בהשגחה כי הוא הזמן ממוצע לבריאות וקרוב לרפואה כדאמרינן בשבת כל שקייני טבא בין דיבחא לעצרתא וק"ל:

במדרש רבה (קהלת י"א, ו') איתא שאמר לשבעת תלמידיו החדשים "הראשונים לא מתו אלא מפני שהיתה עיניהם צרה בתורה זה לזה, אתם לא תהיו כן, מיד עמדו ומלאו כל ארץ ישראל תורה", וטעם זה על כי היו צרי עין נתחדש לו אח"כ

קידושין (ל:): אמר רבי חייא בר אבא: אפי' האב ובנו, הרב ותלמידו, שעוסקין בתורה בשער אחד נעשים אויבים זה את זה, ואינם זזים משם עד שנעשים אוהבים זה את זה, שנאמר: את והב בסופה, אל תקרי בסופה אלא בסופה.

רש"י (קידושין ל:): נעשו אויבים - מתוך שמקשים זה לזה ואין זה מקבל דברי זה.

יומא (פו:): מפרסמין את החנפין מפני חילול השם, שנאמר ובשוב צדיק מצדקו ועשה עול ונתתי מכשול לפניו.

רש"י (יומא פו:): מפרסמין את החנפין - שהן רשעים ומראין עצמן כצדיקים, אם יש מכיר במעשיו מצוה לפרסמו מפני חילול השם, שבני אדם למידין ממעשיו, שסבורין עליו שהוא צדיק, ועוד, כשבא עליו פורענות בני אדם אומרים מה הועיל לו זכותו:

חפץ חיים (באר מים חיים - הלכות רכילות - כלל ט:ב.יז): ויעשה מעשה. שלא אמרו (יומא פו:) מצוה לפרסם את החנפים אלא לענין להזהיר לכתחלה שלא יבוא להתחבר עמו כדי שלא יבוא לידי הפסד, או אפילו אם כבר נתחבר עמו, והוא יודע את טבע האיש שהוא מספר לו שרק יחוש לדיבורו לענין לשמור את עצמו, אבל לא שיסובב לו על ידו היזק ממש ממה שלא היה בא לו אפילו אם היה מעיד עליו בב"ד לבד:

בבא בתרא (כא.): ואמר רבא: האי מקרי ינוקי דגריס, ואיכא אחרינא דגריס טפי מיניה - לא מסלקינן ליה, דלמא אתי לאיתרשולי. רב דימי מנהרדעא אמר: כ"ש דגריס טפי, קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

שו"ע יורה דעה (רמה:יח): אם יש כאן מלמד שמלמד לתינוקות, ובא אחר טוב ממנו, מסלקין הראשון מפני השני.

בבא בתרא (כא:): אמר רב יוסף: ומודי רב הונא במקרי דרדקי דלא מצי מעכב, דאמר מר: (עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו מושיבין סופר בצד סופר. וניחוש דילמא אתי לאיתרשולי. א"ל:) קנאת סופרים תרבה חכמה.

רש"י (ברכות כז:) בעלי תריסין - חכמים המנצחים זה את זה בהלכה 

רש"י (ברכות כח:): ולא אכשל - וישמחו חברי על כשלוני, הרי רעות שתים, שיבאו על ידי שאגרום להם שיענשו.
outdash2
 

Rav Moshe Feinstein: Honoring Conservative & Reform "Rabbis" with an aliyah?

This teshuva is relevant to the recent discussion of Rav Moshe's teshuvos regarding homosexuality which some claimed did not follow the classic Jewish understanding. The following teshuva dealing with the validty of a beracha was criticized in a similar fashion by the Consevative movement.  Amen and Amen: Blessings of a Heretic - like me  

 This fits in with my definition of a gadol, "One whose authority transcends his footnotes." or as Rav Rottenberg of Yeshiva Chofetz Chaim (a close talmid of Rav Moshe) told me, "Some say that Rav Moshe poskened directly from the gemora - I think he poskened from Heaven!"
 ============================================
Igros Moshe (O. C. 3:21): The issue of honoring heretics - in situations of need – by calling them to the Torah and other honors that are given out in the synagogue. Question: When "rabbis" of the Reform and Conservative movements occasionally come Shabbos to a shul of fully observant Jews, is it correct to give these "rabbis" an aliyah to the Torah? Answer: It is an elementary matter that it is inherently prohibited for these "rabbis" to be called up to the Torah. That is because each aliyah requires a beracha prior to the Torah reading and then a beracha after the reading- and the berachos of these "rabbis" are totally worthless and in fact one should not say amen after them. I have written in my sefer Igros Moshe (O.C. 2:50-51) that since these "rabbis" are heretics – when they mention G-d's name it has no special significance and thus the beracha is being said without shem and malchus at all. Consequently even though the Torah is being read by the reader and the congregation hears the Torah reading – nevertheless it is like a Torah reading without beracha. Reading with a worthless beracha is worse then the situation that existed prior to the institution of saying a beracha before and after each Torah reading. That is because after the decree for each Torah reading to have its own berachos - the beracha prior to the first aliyah no longer applies to subsequent aliyos because the the beracha after his aliyah has been said. Regarding other holy synagogue honors which don't require a beracha and are therefore not inherently prohibited - such as lifting up the Torah (hagba), rolling the Torah up (gelila), talking the Torah out (hotzah), putting it back (hachnasa), opening the ark (pesicha), closing the ark (segira) - nonetheless they should still not be given to heretics and these "rabbis" are heretics. In fact giving them these honors transgresses the prohibition of hypocrisy and flattery (chanifa). Consequently it is not fitting to give them these types of honors - as I have written in Igros Moshe (O.C. 2:51) - and unless there is great need it is prohibited to give them these types of honors. However if there is a great need to honor them – such as the concern that this will lead to disputes in the community and there is concern that there will be loss of funding for tzedaka – then there is a basis to permit the holy honors which don't require a beracha. But they should not get an aliya as I have explained. Regarding non-observant Jews who are not heretics, there is no inherent prohibition of giving them an aliya since they believe in G-d and his Torah but they transgress the Torah from lust – and one should answer amen after their berachos. Nevertheless it is clear that it is not nice to give them an aliyah because that is honoring sinners and therefore one should refrain from this unless there is some need such as a yahrtzeit which there would be concern for disputes or other comparable problems. In contrast these "rabbis" who are actual heretics and transgress the Torah out of spite and they try persuading others to go in their wrong path - their berachos are worthless and it is inherently prohibited to give them an aliyah as I said before.

“being frum or normal”? comments

 Hi Reb Daniel,

Hope you are well.

Re “being frum or normal”?

I wanted to share 3 things about Rav Yaakov ZTL (to our generation no last name is needed).

Two are first hand and one heard directly from the person who spoke to RY.

… I attended the chasuna of a close friend, grandson of RY.  (You may know R  from Midreshet Rachel?)

As I’m sure you know RY was opposed to mechitzas at chasunas.

In deference to that, there was no mechitzah.

There was a circle of men and a circle of women.  The distance between them was not huge.

It is etched in my memory seeing RY watching the dancing with a huge smile on his face.

As I believe you said, RY obviously held that not every situation that may bring  a challenge must be avoided or banned.

… I personally asked RY if you may accept the hand of a women who extends it in order to avoid embarrassing her.

He did not know me personally and I did not mention that I am in kiruv.

His exact words were , “mitstama mir ken meykel, as zis nor a derech eretz.”

Same principle, I believe.

… I heard directly from a chashuv yungerman in Lakewood (he sadly was niftar and I may the only person that knows this first hand).

He asked RY if it is appropriate for  yungerleit to ride bicycles.

He answered, “Absolutely, they need to get exercise.”

And , without being asked, RY went on to say, “the wives should also ride, they also need exercise”.

When the yungerman asked him about tznius?

RY responded, “that’s why they have different bikes for women”.

Same principle.

All the best,

M K

By the way, I often use your Yad Moshe.  

I actually want the content publicized as I think it’s a mitzva to preserve these things for posterity, especially given the direction of our Torah world.

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

Reb Yaakov himself rode a bike in camp until he was in his 70's because of concern that a fall could lead to broken bones - DT

A Gene-Hacked Pig Kidney Has Worked in a Brain Dead Human for a Month

 https://www.thedailybeast.com/a-gene-hacked-pig-kidney-has-worked-in-a-brain-dead-human-for-a-month?ref=home

A genetically engineered pig kidney transplanted into a brain dead man continues to function after 32 days—marking the longest time such a kidney has worked in a human being and another milestone in the emerging field of xenotransplantation (the transplanting of organs from one species to another).