Shulem Deen: Truthseeker who had too many unanswered questions or an apikorus skillful in deceptively leaving out most of the important details needed to understand who he is

Dovid Din

update - added video of Shulem expressing his anger at religion and the need to be free of it

Update - added comment of Midas HaDeen

"Shulem Deen has a fascinating story to tell, and he tells it with exquisite sensitivity. All Who Go Do Not Return gives us not only an insider's glimpse into a shrouded world few outsiders get to see, but also a movingly told narrative of one man's struggle toward intellectual integrity. The setting may be the world of Hasidic Judaism, but the drama and the insights are universal."
—Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, author of 36 Arguments for the Existence of God: A Work of Fiction  

I first need to state some facts up front. 

1) I have now read all of Shulem Deen's well written book about how he went from being a pious  chasid to an apikorus. My initial impression just got reinforced as he went into more detail later in the book 2) I knew his parents from Yeshiva Shor Yoshuv - in particular his father Dovid Din 3) This book is different than others written by formerly frum people. The author comes across as genuinely likable, upset that he lost his faith and so far not explicitly advocating that others follow him in his path. 4) The main reason why I am writing this post is because of the strange reaction I got from Prof. Shaul Magid a former student of Shulem's father - who wrote a review of the book in Tablet Magazine.

My concern is to understand why this book was written. What was Shuleem Deen's motivation in describing his loss of faith and describing in great detail the words and acts of his friends and family - even when they don't come across as very positive? It is presented as someone who asked questions in a world where questions are forbidden. While that contains some truth - you need to realize that is not where he comes from but where he deliberately placed himself. 

His parents are both baalei teshuva - former hippies - who were very good at dealing with questions. His father in particular was very well educated in the secular sense and was involved in kiruv of all sorts - in particular answering questions dealing with faith. In addition his parents had a large number of contacts with top notch kiruv experts who deal with all sorts of questions. So far there is no evidence in the book that Shulem took the trouble of going to these people to get answers. Why not? 

In short - Shulem Deen took it upon himself to move into the world of Square Chassidim who strongly believe in simple - non intellectual - faith. He wasn't born into that world and he clearly did not belong there. He says he did it because they didn't require an  entrance exam! And yet when boxed into a non-thinking world where he didn't belong - proclaims that he left because he couldn't get answers to his questions!

One other point - there is the underlying theme that in fact there are no answers for his questions. because they are so devastatingly powerful. Basically if one doesn't have simple faith - then there is no faith because there are no honest rational answers to his questions. This is simply not true. 

This is a reflection of my basic concern - he is setting up straw men, avoiding presenting the full story - because he in fact has an agenda. He is presenting himself as doing what any truly honest man would do when faced with the questions and the anemic answers - giving up a phony religion. In sum he implies that, only someone who accepts that faith means believing something that make no sense - can truly be religious.

My last point for now is how he depicts his relationship with his father. As noted before his father was very intelligent and involved in asking questions and kiruv of those who had questions. He was very articulate. However there is no indication that he ever engaged his father in a serious discussion - even when given the opportunity. While it is true that his father died when he 14 - there were ample opportunities because there were many people who his parents knew that are experts in dealing with questions. The book so far only indicates a single individual that he discussed his questions with - why? Why didn't his father prepare him to be able to deal with questions? It seems that in fact his path is a reaction against his father - though he doesn't spell it out. Is there more to the story than he is telling us? What in fact was his relationship with his father and is his heresy the result of his relationship with his father?

I remember learning the Maharal together with Dovid Din with Rabbi Yosef Rabinowitz. The Maharal strongly states the importance of asking questions and not silencing them. And yet Shulem Deen ended up with a type of chassidim who live very closed isolated lives - that think the opposite of many other frum Jews - including his father. His failure to be able to live a closed intellectually barren form of Yiddishkeit led him to reject Yiddishkeit - why?
 ==========================
This video indicates that Shulem Deen didn't regretfully leave the religious world but in fact is celebrating his freedom from a repressive religion and culture - which he hopes to save others from.



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

update by an commentator Midas HaDeen

I just read the post on Shulem Deen.  I did not read the book, and I know nothing personal of him or his parents.  But the subject is actually very relevant to all of us.  Questions about faith.  We are obligated to address this matter, as it is a pillar of our very existence.  We reaffirm this with recitation of kriyas shema daily.  We are the עם הנבחר, and have a special relationship with our Creator.

Our emunoh involves several aspects.  If we are conscious of them, we can pursue being “people of faith”.  If not, we are groping in the blind.  For starters, we are born into emunoh.  Dovid Hamelech A”H notes, מבטן אמי קלי אתה, drawing attention to the faith that existed at birth.  If we further recognize the drosho of Rav Simlai that the fetus studies the entire Torah in the womb prior to birth.  On top of that all, we enjoy our earliest years being exposed to values of Torah and kedusha.  This emunoh is labeled in sforim as אמונה מתוך קבלה.  It is that faith into which we were bred and born.

We then engage in exploration of our own, wondering, questioning, investigating, studying.  If we are fortunate to have the proper direction, rebbes, talmidei chachomim, healthy resources, we receive the guidance and direction to develop אמונה מתוך חקירה.  The sforim explain why neither of these two alone is adequate.  But both together can be quite powerful.  Either alone is balanced on a pointy base, and there is great risk that even minor breezes can topple it.

The best, the most frum, the most erudite and learned, of the holiest stock of yichus and upbringing require both of these foundations to achieve the level of an “עובד ה'”.  They bear the same obligation to recite the 13 Ani Maamins every day, and cannot point to their choice “frum” levush as the badge of faith.  It requires constant effort and maintenance.  Yes, questions, exploration, not completely taken for granted.  This is explained at great length in many great works that address hashkofoh, including Chovas Halevavos, Moreh Nevuchim, Tanya, Nefesh Hachayim, Maharal, etc.

The baal teshuvah begins the entry to a frum lifestyle with a handicap.  He/she starts with only אמונה מתוך חקירה, having missed the privilege of הורתו ולידתו בקדושה.  The complete faith of this individual is founded on only personal exploration, with the requisite limitations that result from this.  There is a very different basis for living as a Yid, with questions about the same basics that FFB’s take for granted.  The stereotypical baal teshuvah who asks questions about everything is seeking to compensate for the background that is lacking.

I don’t know Shulem Deen, nor his family, nor his life experience.  I can feel sorry for his missing out on a guiding light of mesorah which many of us are fortunate to have.  His efforts to seek truth are not missed by me, a mortal observer, and I do not question whether there is some reward in “yeneh velt” for that.  However, I do feel quite strongly that his failure to find the embracing warmth of קבלת עול מלכות שמים  in his pursuits is not a model for others.  Making this into a book to show others is not, in my opinion, wise or constructive.  It may be his defense to assuage his guilt, where he points to a system that failed to “answer his questions”.  I do not defend the “system” either.  It seems to have been ill equipped to provide answers that would meet the needs of the missing mesorah.  Perhaps far more serious is the observation that the present level of יראת שמים as should be expected from the average Yid, in which there is an appropriate level of דע מה למעלה ממך עין רואה ואוזן שומעת וכל מעשיך בספר נכתבים  is insufficient.  This is obvious when one examines the desperate need for filters on computers and phones, as well as the “history” discovered by computer technicians on the hard drives of the most observant of חסידים ואנשי מעשה.  As a community, we are not offering enough for the FFB.  This is apparent in the struggles of some mainstream FFB’s, and in the foibles and follies that occasionally get publicized of “frum baalei aveiroh”.  If it is not enough for those who are born into a completely “frum” lifestyle, it is inconceivable that it will suffice for the incoming baal teshuvah who is missing that background.

No, I will probably not write a book about deficiencies of the frum community.  Another dirt throwing book is neither needed, nor welcome.  The books to write and the direction change that we sorely need are about the abundance of wealth that exists in being close to HKB”H.  It is the אהבת תורה  that must be instilled in our children.  It is about the precious privilege of being able to daven and perform mitzvos.  It is about the all encompassing life of mitzvos that give us the ability to connect with HKB”H in every single facet of our lives.  It is about the enjoyment and gratitude that we can have in our everyday lives, knowing that HKB”H is the force behind every event, who granted us the greatest gift of all existence, מתן תורה.

Internet Filtering: The false sense of security

There has been much discussion in the Orthodox world regarding the Internet and its dangers. Internet is high on everyone's list of dangerous technology

For those who need the Internet there has been grudging rabbinic permission granted - but only if is is properly filtered. The assumption is that the average religious Jew does not have the ability to withstand the temptations of pornography and heresy and well as bitul Torah or Internet addiction.

The Boro Park residence where I am staying of course has the latest and strongest filtering program. Therefore it came as no surprise when I discovered that my email and a number of other programs no longer worked. 

What did surprise me was the simple activation of a free VPN program removed all blockages -  both for my computer and my Android tablet. VPN programs are widely used either for security when using public wifi networks or for creating a false IP address in the country of your choice. The latter is useful when using Internet sites that only work in the USA.

I have not checked whether VPN removes every type of filtering. So far I have only tried it on perhaps the most popular one. I tried two different free VPN programs - and they both worked.

According to this article in PC World - what I accidentally discovered is in fact a well known realty - except to the computer illiterate older generations.

I am also not advocating removing filtering. My purpose is simply to warn parents and spouses as well as schools - that they have a false sense of security when they use filtered Internet services.

Schlesinger Twins: Rebbetzn Rosenberg told the London community about Dr. Schlesinger's cruel and vindictive behavior regarding his children

On Sunday evening 14th of December Rebbetzin Miriam Rosenberg from Bnei Brak addressed a group of women from the Chareidi community in London to highlight child custody issues. She used the tragic case of the Schlesinger twins in Vienna to illustrate her points.

Many of the women who attended, have friends and family in Vienna, and proceeded to make contact their Austrian connections soon afterwards. The general feedback has been that the Chareidi community in Austria are also convinced that it was corruption in the judiciary which led to the injustice of the children being removed from their mother’s care (there can be no other rational explanation for the judge's behavior).

Furthermore, the community in Vienna, from independent sources, informed them that the weekly visitation has been put on hold due to the person doing the handover being unavailable. As such, the mother’s visitation has effectively been reduced to every alternate Sunday until further notice. The father, Dr. Schlesinger, can still allow the weekly visits to continue, if he wishes, under the handover supervision of Chief Rabbi Eisenberg (which has been kindly offered repeatedly), but every such request has been declined by Dr. Schlesinger.

Rav Moshe Feinstein: Medical screening and Bitachon

 update see Wikipedia - vaccine controversies

In a recent post regarding Dor Yeshorim - the question was raised about Reb Moshe Feinstein's true views on medical screening and its relationship to bitachon and about whether there is a generally agreed upon Torah view of the subject. The Bais HaVaad Institute recently published a series of articles that is relevant to this question. Part I  Part II   Part III

 Part I In Parshas Shoftim after prohibiting sorcery, the Torah instructs, “Tomim tihiyeh im Hashem Elokecha”, “You shall be wholehearted with Hashem your G-d”. The sages in the Sifri interpret the verse not to conjecture about the future. The Shulchan Aruch (YD 179:1) rules, “One should not consult star gazers or cast lots [about the future]”. The Rem’a and Sha’ch explain that while these practices do not fall under the prohibition of sorcery, they are nonetheless not advisable because of the precept of “Tomim tihiyeh”, to be faithful to Hashem. [...]

According to Rabbi Gestetner’s view, “Tomim tihiye” is very limited, and may not apply to health screenings and genetic testing at all. As he explained, only practices similar to fortune telling are prohibited. Arguably, the results of a health screening or genetic test point to facts that are in the present, not the future. This is comparable to leaving a glass at the edge of a table. I cannot say that the glass is destined to fall off and break, but its position certainly puts it at greater risk than the other glasses. Likewise, test results showing hypertension or indicating a genetic mutation do not prophesize a future event, rather it indicates a present level of risk. For this reason, health screenings and genetic testing may not be included in “Tomim tihiyeh” because they are quite different than star gazing or psychic readings. 

 Part II Rashi, in his commentary on Parshas Shoftim explains the mitzvah of “tomim tihiyeh”, “Walk before Hashem with wholeness, hope for Him, and do not speculate about the future. Rather, all that comes upon you accept with wholeness (uncomplicatedness) and then Hashem with be with you”. Based on Rashi’s comments Rabbi Moshe Feinstein understood that “tomim tihiyeh” is a general instruction to place our faith in Hashem when confronting the unknown.

An example of this, is Rabbi Feinstein’s comments in Igros Moshe (1, 90) about a couple dating excessively to make sure it is ‘the right one’. He wrote, “One should not be overly smart {with regards to shidduchim}. Therefore, one could marry the woman that finds favor in his eyes in her appearance and family, and has a good reputation about her mitzvah observance, and assume that she is the one destined to him from heaven. He does not need to excessively tryout if they are compatible because it will not help, as the verse says “tomim tihiyeh im Hashem”, you shall be faithful with Hashem”. Clearly, Rabbi Feinstein is taking tomim tihiyeh beyond fortunetellers and astrologers. 

In 1977, after the Entebbe hijacking and rescue, some Yeshiva students wrote to Rabbi Feinstein asking him how this miracle could happen through Jewish soldiers that do not keep the Torah. Rabbi Feinstein dismissed their question by stating simply that we do not understand the ways of Hashem and we should not involve ourselves in these types of analysis as the verse says “tomim tihiyeh im Hashem”. Here too, Rabbi Feinstein invoked “tomim tihiyeh” as a general instruction to place our faith simply in the hands of Hashem.

Although Rabbi Feinstein extolled faith and simplicity, in his classic work on the Talmud, Dibros Moshe (Bava Metzia, siman 31, he’orah 18), he fully acknowledged a person’s right to be wise and far-sighted about personal matters. The Talmud in Bava Metzia (23b) states that in certain situations a Torah scholar may say a white lie to avoid embarrassment. Rabbi Feinstein observes that in these scenarios the probability of the embarrassment actually happening is very far-fetched according to normal halachic standards. He therefore arrived at a fascinating conclusion, the halachic concepts of majority and chazaka were only intended to make halachic determinations and are not necessarily an instruction in making personal decisions. Therefore, because avoiding embarrassment is not a halachic decision but a personal one, it is acceptable to be concerned even about a minute possibility and therefore it is permitted to tell untruths to avoid this possibility. 

Rabbi Feinstein seems to be balancing these opposing concepts in his discussion about genetic testing for tay-sachs before marriage (Igros Moshe EH 4:10). First he writes, since the probability of both spouses being carriers is minute it may be included in the precept of “tomim tihiyeh” according to Rashi, which instructs us not to delve into the future. However, he then writes, since the test is easily available and if an inflicted child is born it is devastating, the public should be educated about their options. 

Part III  How do halachic sources view preventative measures like health screenings or genetic testing? Are they included in our obligation to heal, or are they a form of speculation that the Torah instructs us not to concern ourselves with?

In the previous post we highlighted factors like probability of occurrence, severity, and the reliability of the treatment or testing as important variables in balancing faith and responsibility. In this post we will continue to develop these concepts, and their application to health screenings and genetic testing. 

The famed Rabbi Shlomo Luria (1500’s) wrote, despite the sages’ general disfavor with unreliable practices, an ill person is not expected to rely on faith alone. Therefore, he may seek a sorcerer or astrologer to heal. Rabbi Luria, However, does strongly discourage a well person from such behavior based on the Mitzvah of “tomim tihiyeh”. 

This assertion can be embellished with the comments of the Maharal of Prague (Nesivos Olam, Nesiv Hatemimus). The Maharal explains that faith in Hashem is referred to as temimus, or wholeness, because it is a straight and sensible path. For this reason, seeking astrologers or sorcerers is discouraged because it deviates from a straight and logical approach to life. With this in mind we can gain a better appreciation for Rabbi Luria’s position. The Mitzvah of “tomim tihiyeh” is instructing us to be sensible. Logic dictates that a well person should not be concerned with far-fetched or whimsical possibilities, rather he should place his faith in the Master of the World. Therefore, because sorcery and astrology are far-fetched and whimsical, they should be avoided. That said, if a person is ill and desperate, it is reasonable to seek all possible options, even if they are not reliable (see Maharal Be’er Sheva p.30 in standard edition).

In this light we can understand a conversation of Rabbi Moshe Feinstein about cancer screening from the late 1970s (Mesores Moshe p.293). Apparently, a doctor was urging an ostensibly well person to undergo excessive (lit. strange) and possibly dangerous tests. The patient asked Rabbi Feinstein his opinion on the matter. Based on “tomim tihiyeh”, Rabbi Feinstein asserted that if there are no symptoms present, there is no reason to seek medical attention because it is not part of our normal responsibility to follow “derech hateva”, or the natural ways of the world.

It seems that Rabbi Feinstein had halachic concerns with the testing because it was far more excessive than the normative standards of the time. Additionally, the tests carried health risks, and were possibly inconclusive. In a similar vein, Rabbi Dovid Feinstein permits pregnant women to go for routine ultrasounds, because it is the common standard of care. Therefore, there is no concern of “tomim tihiyeh”. Apparently, the issue of “tomim tihiyeh” is only when the testing is considered excessive compared to the standard medical practice of the times.[...]

Saving individuals from punishment by blogging about their faults or How to have enemies suffer Divine punishment instead of you.

Berachos (55b) states that when a person becomes sick - he should keep it a secret for the first day. That is in order to not give Satan an excuse to harm him - by giving himself the status of a sick person. [See the Marhasha]  On the other hand if the sickness does not go away and he is in fact a sick person the gemora suggests a different strategy to bring about a cure. Instead of keeping his weakened state a secret to protect against Satan - the gemora says he should now publicize his misfortune. Rashi says that the sickness is viewed in the first place as punishment from G-d (see Shabbos 55a). Their are two reason for now publicizing one's misfortune. The first is obvious - so that his friends will pray for him. The second is not obvious - that his enemies will be happy to see him suffering. And it is known that one should not rejoice at the suffering of an enemy (Mishlei 24:17-18) Therefore  G-d will get angry at his enemy for being happy about his suffering and will take it away from the sick person and give the sickness to the enemy (Ibn Ezra and Malbim Mishlei 24:18).

It is interesting to note that this gemora clearly indicates that one should be concerned about suffering coming apparently independent of G-d - from bad luck and Satan. [Don't open your mouth to Satan]. The best way to deal with suffering from those sources is to simply conceal the misfortune and hope that it goes away quickly. There is no mention of repentance or that the sickness is a punishment from G-d except in Rashi.

The second strategy - when a person realizes he is a sick person and his suffering is not transient  - also doesn't involve repentance. Rather it is to reveal to the public that he is sick - and hope that his weakened state and misfortune will elicit laughter from an enemy. That laughter will cause G-d to stop punishing him and to punish his enemy.

Based on the gemora, I know people who do not want it publicized that they have serious aliments such as cancer. But I am not aware of anyone who is hoping to elicit a cruel rejoicing in his enemy so that the illness will be transferred to this enemy. However why is there is no mention of repentance when this is such an important issue mentioned elsewhere (Berachos 5a, Shabbos 55a, Yoma 86a, Rambam Hilchos Taanis 1:1-3, Ramban Shaar HaGemul 120:6)? Perhaps this is dealing with sickness which he knows is not the result of sin. (Ramban Shaar HaGemul 118, Berachos 5a, Shabbos 55a, Yerushalmi Shabbos 14:3, Kesubos 19a).

Is anybody aware of similar cases where the cause of  suffering (i.e., sin) is not dealt with directly by repenting but it is hoped that it can simply be transferred to someone else? [Scapegoat] Again we are dealing with a passive aggressive approach to enemies. Destroy them by showing them your weakness and failures so that they will rejoice. 

Perhaps this can be used is a justification for bloggers exposing the problems of the community so that the community will not suffer but rather those bloggers or readers who rejoice seeing the problems of others.

Is a talmid chachom/tzadik beyond criticism because he is presumed that he doesn't sin or because he certainly repented immediately?

One of the interesting issues that I found in researching the concept of judging others favorably - is the question of how to relate to  a talmid chachom/tzadik versus an average type person.

Judging favorably typically means that one gives someone the benefit of the doubt. If the act he did or the words he uttered could be understood as bad - then we are to judge him favorably. If the deeds are not ambiguous but are closer to being certainly bad - then judging him favorably is a pious act but is not required.

 We see from the following Rabbeinu Yonah that the tzadik or talmid chachom is judged differently. Even if the evidence is highly likely that he sinned - his is not to be judged as sinning.  The assumption is that it is so highly unlikely that he sinned. Thus Rabbeinu Yonah says this is not called giving him the benefit of the doubt - it is just not in the realm of likelihood - even if we have strong - but not conclusive evidence that he sinned.

 Rabbeinu Yonah(Shaarei Teshuva 3:218): In a situation that a person says something or does something and it is possible to judge his words or his actions either as being good or bad. 1) If he is a G-d fearing man then truth demands that he be judged innocent even if his words or actions are reasonably closer and inclined to being bad. 2) However if he is an average man who tries to be careful not to sin - even though he occasionally does sin - then you should push aside the doubt and judge him favorably. This is in accord with Shabbos (127b), "One who judges his fellow favorably then G-d will judge him favorably." Doing so is a positive command from the Torah as it says in Vayikra (19:15), "With righteousness you shall judge your neighbor." And even if the action seems more likely bad than good – it should remain a doubt – but don't decide that he is guilty. 3) Nonetheless if most of the man's deeds are bad or if you have established that he lacks fear of G-d in his heart – in such a case then in the case of doubt you should assume that his words and deeds are evil as it says, "The righteous one considers the house of the wicked, overthrowing the wicked to their ruin" (Proverbs 21: 12). We have already interpreted this verse.

But what if he actually sinned and there is clear evidence that he sinned. Rabbeinu Yonah uses a different principle. It is not longer that he has a chezkash kashrus that is so strong that it is highly unlikely that he actually sinned - but that it is now highly unlikely he hasn't repented and thus the sin is not to be held against him. He bases himself on Berachos (19a).

Rabbeinu Yonah(Avos 1:6): Judge everyone favorably – This is talking about a case of a man who it is not known whether he is righteous or wicked or that he is known as an average person who sometimes does evil and sometimes does good. Therefore if he does something which could be evaluated as being either sinful or as good – or even if it seems more likely to be sinful – but since it is possible to understand it as good it should be believed that he intended it for the good. However this rule does not apply to either the truly righteous or the truly evil. A truly righteous person even if he does something which is totally bad  - he should be judged as innocent by saying that it was an accident and that he has repented for the sin. This is stated in Berachos (19a), "If you see a talmid chachom at night doing a sin one should not suspect him of being sinful the next day because he has definitely repented."... Thus we see that a talmid chachom is never to be viewed as a sinner and therefore there is no need to say that he should be judged favorably. Similarly a truly wicked person is not judged favorably   - even when he does something totally good that there is no basis to question – he should still be viewed as an evil person and that he is a hypocrite for acting as if he were good. This is stated in Mishlei 26:25),

Rabbeinu Yonah(Mishlei 24:28): Don’t be a gratuitous witness of your fellow man – ...This principle is stated in Berachos (19a), If you see a talmid chachom sinning at night, do not suspect of him of sinning anymore by the day because he will surely have repented by then. Since he has the reputation of a person who is fearful of sinning and he is upset and regrets that his lust overcame him. However if the talmid chachom is in fact a wicked person who is mistakenly thought by the people to be righteous – he is not only to be criticized to those who know how to keep quiet – but in fact it is a mitzva to publicize his deeds until they are well known to the public. That is because severe harm occurs when wicked people are honored because he will turn many away from the proper path and denigrate the honor of the righteous and encourages sinning. There is in fact profanation of G‑d’s name by honoring the wicked because some people will be aware of the sins the wicked do and will concluded that there is nothing wrong with sinning and that it doesn’t lower one’s stature (Yoma 86b)…

The obvious problem with this Rabbeinu Yonah is that the gemora makes a clear distinction and says that the presumption of immediate teshuva is only for sexual sins - but not for monetary ones. Why doesn't Rabbeinu Yonah makes this distinction. A second problem is that we see clearly in our generation that talmdidei chachom commit sexual crimes they don't repent immediate and in fact we have seen recent cases where there sinning has continued over many years? The answer to these questions is that the Chavis Yair (62) and others say simply that the status of talmid chachom for these issues hasn't been relevant for hundreds of years.

It is also interesting that this explanation seems unique to Rabbeinu Yonah

Rambam(Avos 1:6): Judge all people as innocent. This means that if there is a man that you don't know whether he is righteous or wicked and you see him do something or say something that can be interpreted either as good or bad – you should understand it as good and not bad. However if you know the person to be an established tzadik and his deeds are good and he apparently does something that is bad and only by using a far-fetched explanation can it be justified – then it is proper to assume that in fact it was good and do not suspect him of evil.... On the other hand a person well established as evil then it is best to avoid such a person and not to believe he is capable of doing anything good – if there is anyway of interpreting it as evil behavior. Finally if the person is not known to you and his deeds have not been determined to be good or bad – then it is necessary as an act of piety to judge him favorably.

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

This takes us to another issue - the principle of judging favorably is apparently going against truth. In other words we are to judge favorably even when it is reasonable that a person actually sinned. An additional problem is that turning off our critical awareness - is harmful to society. While it is true based on Nidah (61a) that one should take defensive actions - but it still highly increases the likelihood of erring when the person is actually sinning - then if we didn't have this principle. There are many examples of this dealing with sexual abuse and financial misconduct. [to be continued]

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."