How Debbie Gross "saved" me from being abused physically and emotionally at her Convention dealing with abuse and violence in the religious community

update: Times of Israel Orthodox Jews convene to stop domestic and sexual abuse

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

What I am about to describe is the ironic story of abuse by the organizers of a convention dedicated to preventing and dealing with abuse. It also is also another example of well meaning laymen who are genuinely trying to help the Jewish community - insisting on imposing their innovations and distortions of halacha by strong armed tactics and blocking the voices of those that disagree with them.

As I have mentioned previously, I had been approved by the organizers to give two short presentations at next week's International Conference dealing with violence and abuse in the religious community. One of the presentations dealt with the problem of get meusa resulting from putting pressure on the husband to give a divorce the other with insensitivity to abuse by using halacha as a barrier to investigating the allegations of abuse

Also as noted in a previous post last Friday the 21st, I received a letter from Debbie Gross - the organizer of the convention - that she had received  many threatening emails against me from people saying they were coming to the convention specifically to attack me. She said there were no security guards to protect me and she would understand if I withdrew from the convention. This is the letter

Rabbi Eidensohn

Shalom u’vracha.

I am writing you concerning your email of a few weeks ago as to whether we will have some form of bodyguards at the conference to protect the speakers against “hecklers”.  Unfortunately, we do not have any funds or way to provide any form of protection to the speaker.  In these difficult security times in Jerusalem, we are hoping just to stay safe from the arab terrorists who seem to be everywhere.

I would like to alert you to the fact that we have been receiving numerous emails over the past week, from agunot and their families concerning your views and blogs about agunot and the use of the internet.  These emails have been very aggressive and threatening.  I would like to alert you to this fact so that you can reevaluate whether you are prepared both emotionally and physically to deal with what seems to be a large amount of angry participants who are specifically coming to the conference to denounce you and your views.  I am taking their anger quite seriously and relaying such to you.  I hope that you are prepared to deal with their anger and aggression.  I would like you to take all of this into consideration prior to coming to the conference.  I will certainly understand should you decide that this is not the right platform for you at this time.

With best regards,

Shabbat shalom

Debbie Gross

I replied to her that I was coming anyway. 

Thank you for the information. I am still planning on coming.  I am surprised given the emotion associated with the issue the conference is dealing with that there is no security - not even volunteers?

She replied:

May you be well. 

Shabbat shalom

Debbie

 From her response it seemed that she was not happy with my answer. 

But I also received another email on Friday the 21st  from the Conference reminding me that I must register by Monday 24th.

Monday 24th morning I received an email from organizer Henry Horwitz of the Conference saying that since I hadn't registered they were removing me from the Conference speakers.

I called up Henry Horwitz and he told me that he had been told to remove all unregistered speakers on Sunday. I protested and said that I had emails stating that the deadline was Monday. He said I had to speak to Debbie Gross because there was nothing he could do.

While it is true I hadn't registered I had responded several times to the convention organizers that I was coming - and I knew that I could register until Monday 24th.

I registered on their website Monday anyway and paid the fee - the web form said that I was officially registered. I took a photo of the confirmation screen and sent it to the Debbie Gross and the convention organizers asking for clarification.

 

It was clear from Debbie's letter that she was not happy with my presentation about Agunos and was exaggerating her point about the "physical and emotional" dangers to me to scare me. Obviously nobody is coming to the conference and paying the hefty fee - specifically to attack me etc etc. Besides why would a convention about abuse allow a speaker to be abused and heckled?

The question is why she didn't want me speaking since I am merely stating mainstream halacha? I had clearly indicated that on my application which had been approved by the conference. Why had my Internet activity dealing with Dodelson, Epstein and Stein suddenly become an issue 2 weeks before the convention?

However someone at the conference slipped up and sent me a confirmation at 5 p.m. Monday - that I was speaking - but the time of my presentation had been changed to Wednesday. It again specifically said that the deadline for registration was Monday and requested that I register if I hadn't done so already.

 I looked at the session schedule that they sent me and discovered that Rabbi Jeremy Stern was scheduled to speak at that session. He of course is the head of ORA which is a feminist driven YU organization which holds massive demonstrations against husband who don't give their wives a get on demand. Such pressure produces an invalid get according to normative halacha. He has often been mentioned on my blog as we have taken opposing sides in a number of divorce cases. Rabbi Blau - mashgiach at YU - and Dayan with the new Kraus Beis Din [the new incarnation of the Rackman Beis Din] for freeing agunos is also presenting at the convention.

An hour later at 6 p.m. I received another email from the convention saying that the confirmation was a mistake and that I was not speaking because I hadn't registered in time. I still have not heard from Debbie Gross or the other organizers I spoke to as to why I am being excluded.

The reason for my exclusion is obviously not a concern that I might be abused at the abuse convention nor is it a bureaucratic error about registration deadlines. The first could have been solved simply by the standard announcement that anyone who interrupted the speakers would be kicked out of the convention and not allowed to return. The hotel does have security guards for that purpose. The registration deadline is also strange since I received 3 different emails stating it was Monday and in fact the registration for the general public is until today the 26th. I was told by Mr. Horwitz that the registration deadline for the speakers was imposed to ensure the schedules of speakers could be printed up in time. Assuming that is true - it is not big deal to have a session with one speaker not officially listed and it does not explain why Debbie Gross did not bother responding to my emails.

I wish Debbie Gross well with her work to help the community and abuse victims and hope that next week's convention meets her expectations and goals. Perhaps she will allow someone there  to mention the serious normative  halachic problem of get me'usa.

Practical question: Should I not present the Torah viewpoint because of threats of violence?

Update:see How Debbie Gross "saved" me from being abused at the Convention

I just received this letter from the organizer of the Conference on Abuse where I will be speaking at the beginning of December in Jerusalem. I replied that I still plan to show up. My view on these matters is  the mainstream view of the majority of poskim - no chumros.  Any thoughts?

Rabbi Eidensohn

Shalom u’vracha.

I am writing you concerning your email of a few weeks ago as to whether we will have some form of bodyguards at the conference to protect the speakers against “hecklers”.  Unfortunately, we do not have any funds or way to provide any form of protection to the speaker.  In these difficult security times in Jerusalem, we are hoping just to stay safe from the arab terrorists who seem to be everywhere. 

I would like to alert you to the fact that we have been receiving numerous emails over the past week, from agunot and their families concerning your views and blogs about agunot and the use of the internet.  These emails have been very aggressive and threatening.  I would like to alert you to this fact so that you can reevaluate whether you are prepared both emotionally and physically to deal with what seems to be a large amount of angry participants who are specifically coming to the conference to denounce you and your views.  I am taking their anger quite seriously and relaying such to you.  I hope that you are prepared to deal with their anger and aggression.  I would like you to take all of this into consideration prior to coming to the conference.  I will certainly understand should you decide that this is not the right platform for you at this time.

The impact of the Daas Torah Blog

 Guest post by Beth Alexander

To anyone sinking in a pit of despair, the pain and grief is all consuming to the point of total overwhelm.  The sense of feeling invisible, unheard and desperate for help against a backdrop of seeming indifference is possibly one of the scariest and loneliest of human experiences, enough to push a person to the brink.

That was the point at which Rabbi Daniel Eidensohn found me. My ex-husband who had abused me physically, emotionally and psychologically throughout our short-lived 3 year marriage had followed through on his threat to carry out the very worst. Few women in the Orthodox world succeed in fleeing domestic abuse without being “punished” for daring to seek a way out. A narcissistic abuser will go on to hurt her in the cruellest way possible; weaponizing the children, taking them away from her and poisoning them against her. Anyone who has experienced an abusive marriage will know that the abuse does not end upon divorce. Post separation abuse including endless and senseless litigation as well as ostracization from the community is a living hell. With the full backing and influence exerted by his community, doctor friends, connections with judges and Courts, my ex-husband set upon his mission to erase me from my young twin sons’ lives.

Rabbi Eidensohn heard about my nightmare ordeal and knew intuitively there was more to the “story” than met the eye. Whilst community troublemakers propagated the “2 sides to every story” line in a sneering attempt to further undermine and discredit, Rabbi Eidensohn as a clear-thinking psychologist and psychotherapist with deep sensitivity and keen curiosity knew there could only be one real version; the absolute truth and that’s what he set out to uncover and publish on his pages. 

There was no vested interest and no agenda, neither did he have any personal connections to any of the players involved in the case. Nevertheless, he sought to give a voice to both sides, an equal opportunity to be heard, *really* heard and publicly known and understood. To a victim of abuse who has been disbelieved and silenced to the point of giving up, an outlet like Daas Torah was extremely validating and no less than lifesaving.

That’s not to say anyone is given an easy ride. Rabbi Eidenshohn probes and questions everything. Every statement was vigorously fact checked and verified, every allegation passed through a forensic line of questioning that would be enough to make even the sharpest detective sit up and take note. His research and enquiries were meticulous but once convinced of the crux of the matter, Rabbi Eidensohn is relentless in his pursuit of justice. In my personal case, he knew a great wrong had been done. He was sadly all too familiar with the mindset of those who shamelessly parade about like pillars of community without conscience, who think nothing of stomping out those they perceive as weak and defenceless, especially vulnerable women and children.  

Abuse thrives where shame and secrecy prevail. Cultures which promote victim shaming prevent monstrous deeds from being exposed and as long as abuse continues to be covered up, it’s all too easy to deny its existence.  Community is a gift, there is an abundance of charity and chesed but on the flip side of the same coin is an ugliness that is often tragically only discovered the hard way, through lived experience.

Platforms like Daas Torah are crucial to the survival and well-being of our community. When all other channels fail, publicity serves as a formidable tool for tipping the scales of justice via the court of public opinion.  It challenges false narratives, encourages healthy debate and discussion. I had exhausted all other avenues and been shamefully failed by the Courts, the community leaders, social services and every door had been slammed in my face. My faith in the institutions which are supposed to serve us as well as human decency was shattered. As a pioneer of a blog covering issues of Jewish interest, Rabbi Eidensohn was way ahead of his time. He set out to raise awareness of what had been happening for decades in darkness but few had the courage to bring to light.

My boys now 14 years old have been deprived of a childhood with maternal love. I was excluded from the most important milestone of their young lives, their Bar Mitzvahs. The psychological damage and trauma that has been done to them cannot yet be determined but the scars undoubtedly run deep. 

It is the quiet and unsung heroes like Rabbi Eidensohn who deserve and demand our respect and admiration for dedicating his life to helping and uplifting others and keeping the Jewish world in check where halacha, morality and basic ethical conduct is forgotten. 

"I've never seen anything like it": Economic analyst stunned at sources of Jared Kushner's funds

 https://news.yahoo.com/ive-never-seen-anything-economic-184852509.html

"But, again, we're going back to a guy who's a real estate guy, and frankly, not a particularly good one at that, who's suddenly got $3 billion trying to do private equity deals competing against people who've been in this business for a long time. And I wouldn't, if I were the Saudis, count on making a lot of money from this any time soon," he said, adding: "U.S. private equity firms still raise the vast bulk of their money from U.S. investors. This is extraordinary — unprecedented — I've never seen anything like it.

Rivky Stein & Yoel Weiss: Failed Messiah blinded by his hatred for Chareidim - becomes incoherent when contradicted by facts

 update: As Shmarya continues to use abusive language and name calling in his comments to this post and claims that he has integrity - contrary to my claims - I just wanted to add evidence from his own blog.

1) Please read his comment rules - and decide for yourself whether his foul name calling and tirades -  not only on his blog but also here - is consistent with his requirement not to use name-calling and using facts and logic?

Failed Messiah Comment Rules

• 5. Try to argue using facts and logic.
  6. Do not lie.
  7. No name-calling, please.
  ***Violation of these rules may lead to the violator's comments being edited or his future comments being banned.***

2) Concerning his claim for integrity as a reporter and being able to back up everything he says - please note the following quote from his  schnorring appeal

As many of you know, FailedMessiah has broken many major stories, from the Rubashkin family's shenanigans to Rabbi Leib Tropper's extortion and sex scandal, along with important parts of the New Square arson/attempted murder story and child sex abuse reporting, to name a few.

The fact is that he did not break the story about Rabbi Leib Tropper sex scandal. I published it before he did - as he acknowledged recently in a comment on this post. Claiming falsely that my breaking the story almost killed it - which is total nonsense.

And your Tropper post almost killed the Tropper story, at least as wide coverage went. I know this is a bit beyond you, but newspapers and magazines require fact-checking and editing and vetting with attorneys, all of which takes time. And your 'scoop' almost killed the work I did before you that was published and picked up widely.

==========================
The following are recent comments to Failed Messiah's post of Baby dies in hot car. It is a clear example of the inability of rabid bashers of Charedim to acknowledge facts that are not critical of Chareidim. In fact Shmarya goes into an incoherent rage when his lies are conclusively refuted.  This is possibly why there has not been a single person who has publicly apologized for slandering Yoel Weiss by repeating Rivky Stein's lies. Chareidi bashers lack elementary integrity because they are not concerned with truth but only ridiculing Chareidim. That is why it is difficult for them to apologize for mistaken claims and allegations. Also contrary to Shmarya's ridiculous lies - my brother who is clearly not a moron or dishonest - was not behind these posts.

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

Will you be issuing a statement of repentance for perpetuating the lies against Yoel Weiss?
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/09/rivky-stein-yoel-weiss-before-rosh.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/07/rivky-jewish-press-withdraws-it-support.html
http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2014/08/rivky-stein-yoel-weiss-exclusive.html

Posted by: B | September 07, 2014 at 01:14 AM

Idiot. Eidensohn’s brother, who is behind those posts, is both a moron and incredibly dishonest. When are you going to apologize for your racism, for your lies and for all of your very evident evil?

Posted by: Shmarya Rosenberg | September 07, 2014 at 01:29 AM

Did Eidensohn's brother convince Abeles to put up that affidavit saying his name had been falsified, that he was not a rabbi and not on the fictional beit din?

Did Eidensohn's brother manipulate the Jewish Press into withdrawing Yoel Stein's name as a get refuser?

If I wait at the crossroads at midnight, will Eidensohn's brother show up and teach me to play the blues in exchange for my soul?

Why would I need to apologize for having opinions offensive to you? It's not a crime to be "racist" (which is a meaningless epithet to be applied to whites voicing opinions objectionable to the smearer in order to shut them up,) but it is an offense to repeat slander about others.

In this case, this woman and her handlers built up a pyramid of lies, which you blindly repeated because they fit your agenda-if one Jew in Tel Aviv breaks wind, you'll be writing for weeks about how every toilet in Bnei Brak exploded. Now the pyramid is crumbling. You'll be the last to acknowledge it, I'm sure.

Posted by: B | September 07, 2014 at 02:20 AM

Schlesinger Twins: Why does the court prefer a Filipino stranger as primary caretaker?

Guest post by Beth Alexander

It’s hard enough having my boys taken away from me again and again by their father after our visits, each time re-awakening the past, the torment of that fateful day which never fades with time.

Watching a Filipino stranger walk away carrying my crying child is a whole other level of pain.

Benjamin, just a moment earlier a little monkey in my arms, hands and legs clinging to me desperately, holding on with all the might of a 5 year old, now transferred to ‘the other woman’ in my ex husband’s life; a Filipino helper, while Sammy, a lost little boy ambles alongside, a faraway look in his big beautiful eyes.

Who is this woman who spends all day with my twins? Is she a legal resident of Vienna? What kind of contract does she have to look after my children? What exactly are her qualifications?

While my parenting skills were endlessly questioned and undermined, this woman – who has replaced me as main carer, hasn’t even been identified!

How can any court in the world believe that the children’s best interests are better served in the care of this woman (who can’t speak either German or English properly) rather than their mother?

My overnight visit ended at 10am this morning but the father was working today so he decided this stranger must substitute. I have my boys again tomorrow – my weekly Tuesday visit – and would have given anything to have them another day and night. I even asked for 9.00 – 5pm tomorrow instead of 11.00- 5pm since the children are still off kindergarten but of course the father refused. The Filipino also brings the children on Tuesday mornings.

Where’s the grandmother? the aunt? the sister? all the family support the father assured the judge he would have before he was awarded custody. Instead, Sammy and Benji are dumped off with hired help while I am bled financially to pay for it.

Yet the court refuses to see it, to hear it, to believe it because acknowledging this absurd reality would be an admission of guilt, wrongdoing and abuse.

The same can be said for the Jewish community of Vienna: Rav Biderman, Ariel Muzicant, Oskar Deutsch and Mr Pardess who remain silent because they would rather not confront the unpleasant realities on their doorstep. Far easier to slam the door on us and turn away.

Seminary Scandal: "They call him Tatte" - How should male teachers relate to female students?

While most of the attention of the Seminary Scandal is concerned with the conflict between the Chicago Beis Din and the Israeli Beis Din - more important issues are being ignored.

To put it bluntly and clearly - What should the nature of the relationship be between young unmarried females students of 18 or 19 and male teachers in the seminary?

We are all familiar with the laws prohibit physical contact between males and females. We all think we are familiar with the laws of yichud - that a male should not be alone with a woman who is not his wife.

What is clearly missing though is dealing with special relationships involved strong emotions, one party being subordinate to a brilliant Torah scholar who is also charismatic, empathetic and capable of providing immense dosages of self-esteem with a proper smile or concerned question or sometimes by offering large amount of time to listen sympathetically to the pains and troubles of a young lady. This also applies a rabbi and a female congregant who is coming for marital counseling or simply to get the attention she isn't getting from her busy husband. It also applies to the workplace where a boss or supervisor or coworker - provides needed emotional or professional assistance to an admiring and appreciate member of the opposite sex. It also applies especially to the world of kiruv where young personable men have extensive and intensive emotional interaction with young females in the hope of making them frum by providing them with a warm attentive relationship.

I remember Rav Feivel Cohen saying that a guy who learns in Kollel by having his wife go into the workplace - gets no reward for his Torah learning.

One of the major seminaries in Jerusalem has a very warm caring principal who deals extensively with his student's problems. In fact that is one of the major attractions of the seminary. His students refer to him as Tatte.[I was just informed that it is either a common but mistaken belief or that it is only true for a small percentage of the student. However my point of concern is still valid.] When I expressed surprise at this - the seminary teacher who told me about this said that these type of relationships are not only common in the seminaries for Americans in Jerusalem - they are considered desirable. He also added that he isn't aware of any halachic basis to justify such a relationship and that gedolim are not asked and generally have expressed a negative attitude to such a relationship. In fact when one of my friends needed a job to support his family - Rav Eliashiv told him that teaching in a seminary was only the last resort if he could not find any other job -  because it was very problematic interacting with young ladies on a regular basis.

Some people have responded by simply saying that this is the necessary risk that needs to be taken in education and kiruv. That the benefits far out way the costs so that we tolerate the few cases where the boundaries of halacha are violated and transgressions occur. In other words this is the cost of doing business.

What is clear is that the justification for these relations are coming from the bottom up i.e.,  by what works or what can't be stopped. This is not how we deal with the issue of kashrus or Shabbos - but it is the reality today. 

I would like to have a discussion as to what should be and what needs to be - in order to properly educate women today. Should seminaries be  modeled on a warm and caring family or should they be  more intellectual and less emotional like a college environment? Should we be willing to accept that there will be periodic scandals or should there a zero tolerance standard even if it means that more girls go off the derech because they have lost interest in Yiddishkeit? What do you think?"

Update:  One educator has suggested the following:

1 male teachers may never call students by first name rather Miss (or Ms. ) plonis

2 classrooms may not be small creating a feeling of intimacy

3 One must maintain an atmosphere of distance and mechubadus while being respectful and nice to the students

4 Only men over 50 with good solid marriages  may teach young women

5 no jokes to get a laugh are allowed they create kalus rosh

6 one may allow a young woman to seek advice on personal (appropriate ) matters once and then refer them to a female adviser, mentor or mental health professional when necessary

Chofetz Chaim disagrees with Rabbeinu Yona about lashon harah said in public

The Chofetz Chaim states that he built his understanding of lashon harah on Rabbeinu Yonah.

=======================
(Introduction to Chofetz Chaim):

"I have taken these halachos from all the scattered places in the Talmud and the writings of those who have issued rulings concerning lashon harah. In particular from the Rambam, the Semag and Rabbeinu Yonah's Shaari Teshuva - who have illuminated our eyes in these halachos."

"The reader should not find it astounding that even though my entire sefer is based on halachic principles and conclusions, but I nevertheless cite in a number of places proofs from Rabbeinu Yonah's sefer – Shaarei Teshuva which is a mussar book [not halacha]. That is because if one examines Rabbeinu Yonah's words in a number of places it is clear that he was very careful with his words and they do not deviate from the halacha. In particular this is true concerning his writings about lashon harah. In fact everything he wrote there is a source in the Talmud as I will explain G‑d willing in this sefer. However he is very sparing in his words and he doesn't cite his sources contary to the practice of Rishonim. Nevertheless, in most cases I did not depend exclusively on the rulings of Rabbeinu Yonah – except in circumstances where a leniency could be inferred (and this is true for other Mussar books)."

Chofetz Chaim (Lashon Harah Be'er Mayim Chaim 10:7.1-23): The majority of this Kelal (10) is drawn from Rabbeinu Yonah in Shaarei Teshuva or his views cited by Shitah Mekubetzes.
===============

 However it is interesting to note, that when dealing with the leniency of the gemora [Arachin 15b] that negative words stated in the presence of three people or said before the person - are not considered lashon harah - he significantly deviates from the view of Rabbeinu Yonah. Futhermore the Chofetz Chaim does not acknowledge this disagreement and in fact he claims that Rabbeinu Yonah supports his view as do all rishonim - except for the Rambam.

This is not simply an esoteric hair splitting issue. This leniency of the gemora which is clearly supported by Rabbeinu Yonah according to its plain meaning - is one of the major justifications to allow newspapers and blogs. 

The Chofetz Chaim (2:2-3) claims that the gemora is only talking about those things which are ambigious and therefore can be understood as lashon harah or as innocent words (avek lashon harah). The Chofetz Chaim states that saying ambiguous statements in the presence of 3 is permitted - and that this is agreed to by all rishonim and poskim (See Clall 2 Be'er Maim Chaim 1) - except the Rambam [and the Maharal].


 However it is clear that Rabbeinu Yonah did not understand the gemora as the Chofetz Chaim did. Furthermore - contrary to the Chofetz Chaim - the Avodas haMelech says it is a dispute in the poskim whether it applies only to avek lashon harah.

 Rabbeinu Yona (Shaarei Teshuva 3:228): Now it is necessary to think deeply about this matter to understand its root. We have said previously that it is permitted to speak disparagingly about a sinner because of the wrong which is in his hands, if it is known that he has not repented. Thus it is permitted to degrade sinners that steal or rob, or cause damage or oppress, humiliate, embarrass, shame or slander others. This applies also to those who do not return what they stole or do not pay for the damage they have caused or have not asked forgiveness for the harm they have caused others. 

However those who want to do things in the best way will first speak with the sinner in the hope that they will succeed - by chastising him - to get him to repent his evil ways. However if he adamantly refuses then they can publicize his ways and his evil deeds. There is an important reason for first chastising the sinner – [even though the halacha doesn't require it]. If he publicly disparages the sinner after he has discovered the bad things that the sinner has done and he explains from a variety of perspectives why these deeds are so bad – then the speaker will be suspected of simply being a slanderer who is concerned only of destroying the other's reputation. People will say, "Even if what he says is true, the proper thing is to try and correct the sinner by educating and chastising him first." From the fact that he didn't first chastise the sinner, the listeners will suspect that the speaker would not have said such derogatory things in the sinners presence but would have flattered him instead ["Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove" Hoshea 4:4] – and thus view him also as a hypocrite. Thus they will say the speaker was solely motivated by the pleasure he gets from talking about the guilt of others and he rejoices in their transgressions and thus he feels he gains honor by degrading others – when not in their presence. Consequently he is viewed as simply a gossiper and the dust of slander clings to him.

However there is another reason for chastising the sinner before condemning him. If he fails to chastise first it is possible that the listeners will think that he is lying and that he simply made up all the slander and that is why he didn't first reveal his claims directly to the sinner but concealed his words from him.

This principle of first chastising helps explain (Arachin 15b), that everything which is said in the presence of the one being talked about is not considered lashon harah. In other words if one first openly chastises a sinner for his deeds and the sinner doesn't repent, then it is possible to publicize the transgression of the sinner and his bad character – because the speaker will no longer be suspected of being motivated simply by the desire to destroy the reputation of another person.

Similarly, if the speaker has an established reputation of not being biased against anyone and not flattering anyone. If he will not talk differently about a person whether he is there or not - meaning that everything he will say when not in the person's presence is the same as when he is. And furthermore that he is not afraid of any man and he has a reputation for always telling the truth. In such a case he will not be suspected when speaking about another man's sins - even when the sinner is not present. This idea is alluded by our Sages (Arachin 15b), Rabbi Yossi said," 'I never said a thing and turned back". In other words, "I never said anything about a person when he wasn't there which I would have suppressed if he had been present. Similarly (Arachin 16a), "Everything which is said in the presence of 3 people is not considered lashon harah." In other words, "Since I made the statement in public therefore it will become known by the person I am speaking about and therefore it is like I said it in his presence."

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.