Rav Ovadiah Yosef(Yechava Daas 4:60): Question: A person trying to get a driver’s license has a medical condition that makes his driving dangerous. But the condition is not revealed by the normal medical tests. Is it permitted for the doctor himself or someone who definitely knows about his illness - to notify the licensing bureau to prevent him from getting a license? Is it permitted to reveal this information so that he won’t cause accidents and tragedies with his driving or perhaps the doctor is prevented because of the prohibition of rechilus and lashon harah? Answer: There is a Torah prohibition of not speaking lashon harah (bad things even though they are true)…. However it seems that the prohibition is only when the intent in saying it is to besmirch the person and to degrade him. However if he does it because of a specific benefit or to prevent damage it is permitted. Proof for this is found in the Rambam (Hilchos Rotzeach 1:14): Whoever has the ability to save someone and yet doesn’t - transgresses Vayikra (19:16): Do not stand idly by the blood of your fellow man. … Or he heard that non‑Jews or informers were plotting to cause someone harm and yet didn’t warn the intended victim. Or he knows that a non‑Jew or influential person is upset with a fellow Jew and he has the ability to placate them and to eliminate their complaints and doesn’t placate them. And all similar situations which a person doesn’t save his fellowman when he had the ability to do so – has transgressed the prohibition of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow man.” This is also the view of the Tur and Shulchan Aruch (C.M. 426:1). Therefore in our case where he has a hidden medical condition such as epilepsy and he conceals this from the license bureau in order to obtain a license and it is possible that he will suffer an attack while he is driving and this might cause a dangerous accident – G‑d forbid! – it is certain that the person who knows about this condition has an obligation and mitzva to notify the license bureau about this illness to prevent damage and danger to society. Even though the doctor has an obligation of confidentiality, but in these circumstances it is a mitzva for him to notify the license bureau. There is not the slightest concern that this is prohibited. In fact this is the way to understand the verse regarding lashon harah. “Do not speak lashon harah but don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” Even though there is a prohibition of lashon harah, nevertheless the second clause of the verse tells you that it is conditional on this not causing harm. Therefore you are obligated to inform others regarding certain matters in order to them to guard against loss and danger. This is expressed in Nidah (61a) that even though it is prohibited to listen to lashon harah but you should protect yourself from the potential danger you hear about. The Rambam (Mitzva 297) says that protecting another’s money is also included in “don’t stand idly by concerning the blood of your fellow.” … Therefore even if there is only a financial loss, one should inform your fellow man in order that he can protect himself from those who want to harm him. And surely when there is a possible danger to an individual or a group. [See Rashba (Shabbos 44a)]. We find a similar view expressed by the Pischei Teshuva (O.C. 156): “The Magen Avraham and all the mussar book go into great detail about how serious the sin of lashon harah. However I want to describe the opposite issue. There is a greater sin than lashon harah and it is more common. It is refrain from revealing information from others in situations that they need to know to protect their property or themselves from harm – all because of the concern not to say lashon harah… These matters are given over to the heart. If the motivation of the speaker of lashon harah is to cause another harm – then that is prohibited. But if his intent is for the good to warn another person and save him – then it is a great mitzva and he will receive beracha for telling it.” We find this view also expressed by the Chofetz Chaim (Hilchos Issurei Rechilus #9):”If you know about a business deal that will definitely cause someone a loss – you have an obligation to inform that person. Similarly if you know about a person with a serious disease who is interested in getting engaged to a particular woman – it is important to reveal this information to her parents. Of course it is important not to say more than what he actually knows and that his motivation is purely for the benefit of those concerned so that they will not be harmed. He should not have the intent to besmirch another because of jealously or hatred he has in his heart.”… Therefore in our case regarding the man with an undetectable medical condtion trying to get a driver’s license such as epilepsy – there is an obligation to notify the license bureau concerning what he knows in order to prevent damage to life and property. [See previous posts]
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Obama gambles our future
Newsweek
[...] The Obama budgets flirt with deferred distress, though we can't know what form it might take or when it might occur. Present gain comes with the risk of future pain. As the present economic crisis shows, imprudent policies ultimately backfire, even if the reversal's timing and nature are unpredictable.
The wonder is that these issues have been so ignored. Imagine hypothetically that a President McCain had submitted a budget plan identical to Obama's. There would almost certainly have been a loud outcry: "McCain's Mortgaging Our Future." Obama should be held to no less exacting a standard.
Wife abuse vs spousal abuse/RaP
Dear Rabbi Eidensohn,
I noticed that in your latest "mission statement" you state:
"...At the present time I am writing a source book dealing with the issue of child and wife abuse."
What about husbands, are they never abused? I would like to offer a suggestion and some reasons for it and I hope that you can act on it. Firstly, I would like to point out to you a blatant error on your part based on simple pure Torah hashkofa. And that is, that when HKB"H created Chava FROM Adam, the Torah says that she is to be an "ezer kenegdo" and as you know the chazal teach as reported by Rashi "ezer kenegdo" means that if the man/husband is zocheh she/the wife is an "ezer" and if not she will be "kenegdo". Thus, from this yesod we learn that there is a symbiotic interplay between a man/husband's zechusim and the woman/wife he gets, and that the woman is perfectly capable of being the cause of the downfall of a man/husband....
Secondly, another key lesson is from the events of the chet of Adam HaRishon, that it was Chava who brought about his downfall, after she was seduced (and raped) by the nachash, and in turn she and all womankind was cursed by HKB"H to be subservient to her husband as the posuk says "v'el isheich teshukoseich vehu yimshol bach".
The Torah says that the correct order is for the man/husband to rule his family and for the wife/woman to follow (of course, we know that the Torah then elevates women as in all the examples of the Imahos) but Torah Judaism does not subscribe to modern women's liberation and its various pro-women egalitarian agendas simply because it is not needed in a true Torah society and you should not, even inadvertently, be feeding into that current of advocating only for women/wives when it is a two way street and both men/husbands and women/wives need to be reminded EQUALLY how to respect each other and not abuse each other and to be respectful spouses.
Thirdly, you seem to be falling into the politically correct trap of only speaking out as an advocate for females/wives, when men/husbands need advocates as much as their female counterparts, just that men differ from women biologically as you know, so the focus is different. While women lack men's physical strength they are nevertheless fully capable of inflicting damaging and irreparable harm and pain on men in other emotional, mental and social ways.
Finally, as a psychologist you should be fully aware of the various non-verbal and sub-conscious ways that ALL women operate in all spheres and that when it comes to couples counseling the given principle, no matter what the present issues may seem to be between a couple, is that it is ALWAYS assumed to be 50-50 and in any problem between any couple the key is to accurately identify/diagnose and successfully cure (if possible) the source of the friction that the couple is creating between them as it never comes from the man/husband alone or vice versa. The couple is one unit and they are each other's spouses
Examples of husband and male abuse by women/wives in Orthodox and Haredi society can come in various ways, such as:1) Following outside society's immorality and slipping into infidelity and cheating on their husbands and hence producing mamzerim and the husbands who are fooled into thinking that a child is theirs when its not.
2) Siding with an outside person to "triangulate" against the husband, by aligning with interfering parents, nosy and busybody therapists, rebbetzins, rosh yeshivas or mashpi'im and friends who may be advising the woman to confront her husband and seek a divorce or alimony as weapons.
3) Ganging up with the children against the father and undermining his role as the "rosh hamishpocha" with devastating results for the father's ability to discipline his children and leading to his loss of self-esteem as a father and provider and maybe causing the father to lash out against his children when he is really trying to get at his wife but is afraid of her. This continues even after divorce where child custody is made difficult by the mother's (the ex-wife) actions alone and in demanding hefty divorce settlements in "gold-digger" style!
4) Cases of physical abuse also abound where women/wives react physically with either temper
tantrums, screaming, breaking objects and even hitting the children and the husband, all of which does happen and is recorded
5) Extreme cases where women attack their husbands violently, such as the "Lorena Bobbit case" (not Jewish I admit, but it is a threat) where she castrated her husband while he slept, or the recent case of a Jewish Bucharin woman in NYC jailed for life because she had hired a hit man to kill her husband over a child custody dispute and he did. There are many cases where it is the mothers who are abusing the children as well as abusing their husbands all in one stream of action.
Therefore I hope I have made my point and I strongly suggest that you remove the word "wife abuse" and replace it with "spouse abuse" or "spousal abuse" that shows your neutrality in the matter and that in your research and source book you will also include the subject of how husbands can be and are abused by their wives, often in collusion with an outside person against the husband resulting in husband abuse that leads to troubled relationships, broken marriages, divorces, transgression of Halacha and even criminal acts and proceedings where the wife/woman is the guilty party and the husband/man is the innocent victim.
======================================
DT:
Thanks for your comments. Originally I was planning on doing spousal abuse as well as bullying of children etc. The issue came down to the fact that there is a lot of solid material in halachic sources for physical and sexual abuse - but very little dealing with the issue of psychological abuse which is more typical for husbands. There are cases of husband's being beaten - but it is not the typical case.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Beis Din ordered to justify annuled conversions
JPost followup of JPost
The High Court of Justice on Monday issued a suspended injunction to the Rabbinic Court ordering it to explain within 90 days why it nullified the conversions made by special courts headed by former National Conversion Authority chief Rabbi Haim Druckman and how it the authority to do so.
The ruling came in response to a petition filed jointly by the Center for Justice for Women, other organizations and two women whose conversions were invalidated.
In addition, the High Court extended the temporary injunction so that the appellants - whose Judaism was cast into doubt by the Rabbinic Court - could be removed from its list of people forbidden from marrying until a ruling is made on the matter.
The petitioners asked the High Court to obligate the country's rabbinic courts to recognize every conversion registered by the National Conversion Authority and by the Interior Ministry, and to instruct the rabbinic registry office to marry all converts who appear before them without raising doubts about their conversions or declaring them as forbidden for marriage.
The call to cancel the conversions was made by Dayan (religious court judge) Avraham Attia, a member of the Ashdod District Rabbinical Court, and was upheld in a ruling by Dayan Avraham Sherman of the Supreme Rabbinical Court in February 2008.
The ruling stemmed from a specific case in which the Ashdod court retroactively annulled a woman's conversion that was performed by Druckman 17 years ago.
The decision to annul the conversion was made after it became known that she never adhered to Orthodox Jewish practice after her conversion. As a result, the Jewish status of the woman's four children was annulled.[...]
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Rav Shlomo Aviner - Reporting child abuse
Torat HaRav Aviner - #17 May 2009
We unfortunately see a phenomenon of unbridled parental child-beating, and there are also cases of parents or other relatives raping boys or girls. This heinous phenomenon exists in the same percentages amongst the religious as amongst the secular.[Couldn't find any statistics to support his assertion that there is greater incidence amongst religious and a number of psychologists who work with abuse said they never saw any data supporting this claim and so I deleted it] but it gets reported only when matters get too far out of hand, or it comes to light by itself, and by then many more cases crop up.
And why don’t people report it? “It constitutes forbidden gossip… It might destroy the lives of the abuser… it’s unsavory to report it… it will bring calamity on the abuser and his family…” Obviously, all this is wrong. This is the sort of report that one can and must make. After all, the child is small, and who will protect him? It’s one thing if abuse happens outside of a family. One can hope that perhaps the family will stop it and protect the child, but if it occurs within the family, the child has no one to save him. Therefore, whoever knows about it has to report it. Obviously, first one has to talk with the parents, or with the teacher if he is the abuser. If they stop and go for treatment, all the better. If not, however, one is required to report to the welfare department or the police. Some among the Chareidim argue that one is forbidden to report abuse in accordance with the Jewish law that one is forbidden to be a “mosser”, i.e., a person who “betrays a Jew to the non-Jewish courts”, which, by analogy, they apply to the courts of the State of Israel. Yet that is wrong as well, because the child’s life is at stake. The author of the book “Nishmat Avraham”, Rabbi Dr. A. Avraham, relates that he asked the illustrious rabbis of our generation, Rabbi Shlomo Zalman Auerbach, Rabbi Eliezer Waldenberg and Rabbi Shalom Elyashiv about this, and all of them said that it is a mitzvah to report the abuse, and the person who does so is no “mosser.”
Quite the contrary, the parents or family members or the teacher who commits the abuse, whether physical or sexual, is to be categorized as a “rodef,” an attacker, and one who reports a “rodef” is not to be classed as a “moser." Those same rabbis rule that even if, as a result, the child will be removed from his family and placed into a secular institution or adopted by secular parents, or – in cases abroad – even if he is placed in an institution of non-Jews – this is a matter of life and death. We must certainly strive to have the child not undergo such placement, but even if there is a chance it will happen, as noted, this is a matter of life and death (Nishmat Adam, Vol. 4, page 207). [...]
Quite the contrary, the parents or family members or the teacher who commits the abuse, whether physical or sexual, is to be categorized as a “rodef,” an attacker, and one who reports a “rodef” is not to be classed as a “moser." Those same rabbis rule that even if, as a result, the child will be removed from his family and placed into a secular institution or adopted by secular parents, or – in cases abroad – even if he is placed in an institution of non-Jews – this is a matter of life and death. We must certainly strive to have the child not undergo such placement, but even if there is a chance it will happen, as noted, this is a matter of life and death (Nishmat Adam, Vol. 4, page 207). [...]
EJF promotes conversion for intermarried
Recipients and Publicity commentary on latest developments with EJF "Eternal Jewish Family - R' Tropper's blog":
EJF promotes conference with Kiruv organizations, while its theme is "Converting Intermarried Couples", yet is set to promote the toughest approach to conversion itself, as EJF and Rabbi Tropper are forced to issue an official public apology and explanation to the RCA over another conversion incident. Firstly the apology:
(1) EJF and Rabbi Tropper have issued the following on the official EJF website:
"EJF Updates 05/11/2009
EJF Clarifies Stand on RCA GeyrusA media report that appeared to challenge the validity of a geyrus performed by a rabbi affiliated with the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA) was not authorized by EJF. The report made it appear as if EJF was critical of the geyrus, when in fact EJF was never privy to the circumstances behind the giyur. While questions were raised about the procedure that led up to the giyur, EJF at no time ruled on the status of the conversion. It likewise never authorized anyone affiliated with the organization to address the giyur in the media. EJF International apologizes for any misunderstanding, particularly in a case where the Rosh Bais Din who performed the conversion is a true Talmid Chacham. In commenting on the giyur, Rabbi Leib Tropper noted, “Our standards that are based on the halachic rulings of past and present gedolei yisroel are well known and not subject to compromise. Both EJF and RCA agree that any differences should be aired between rabbinic leaders of both organizations and not in the media.” [to finish reading click on this link and read comments]
Mussar becomes Life Coaching
YNet reports:
Beginning next school year, students at the Orot Aviv yeshiva in Tel Aviv will be offered personal life coaching sessions to help them "better connect with their Torah studies."
The lessons will be offered by the yeshiva's rabbis, who are currently undergoing training.
Rabbi Mishael Cohen, head of the Orot Aviv Yeshiva, stresses that the personal coaching project is aimed at providing the students with the "necessary tools to study Torah and work on his character
According to the yeshiva, in this era of television and the internet the students are finding it difficult to concentrate and relate to the texts, and are therefore in need of professional assistance. Rabbi Ettinger of the Orot Aviv yeshiva says the lessons will be based on "Jewish books that deal with morality, such as Mesilat Yesharim (Path of the Just)." [...]
Friday, May 15, 2009
Blog readership - worldwide - including Arabs
I was recently checking the blog statistics and I noticed an interesting change concerning the location of readers.
Besides getting readers from the United States and Canada, I have regulars from Brazil and South America - aside from a certain Brazilan billionaire. There are many readers from London as well as Germany and even Shanghai and India. There are a few from Italy and Romania. However I also notice that there are Arab readers from Jordan and Oman who seemed fascinated by an old post from Jersey Girl - Should Jews hate Arabs?
Besides getting readers from the United States and Canada, I have regulars from Brazil and South America - aside from a certain Brazilan billionaire. There are many readers from London as well as Germany and even Shanghai and India. There are a few from Italy and Romania. However I also notice that there are Arab readers from Jordan and Oman who seemed fascinated by an old post from Jersey Girl - Should Jews hate Arabs?
Abuse: Difficult issues / Case of Colmer
A married Jew with peyos and a black hat, Stefan Colmer used to spend hours, according to reports, reading the Talmud in the main study hall of the Mirrer Yeshiva on Ocean Parkway in Brooklyn. While there, he also befriended some boys in and around the yeshiva and, on occasion, invited a few of them to his nearby home.
And, according to a source close to the case, Colmer allegedly sexually abused several of them — in addition to other young boys from the “general neighborhood” near the yeshiva, a law enforcement source believes.
Colmer, 32, who moved to Israel in early 2007, weeks before any of his alleged victims approached the police, was extradited to Brooklyn in January 2008 and is now being held at Rikers Island, awaiting trial on charges that he sodomized two teenage boys, both 13 at the time, on numerous occasions. He faces up to seven years in prison if convicted on all charges.
What isn’t in the criminal charges against Colmer is that, according to numerous sources familiar with the facts, several years before allegedly abusing the two victims named in the May 2007 indictment he was treated in the sex-offender program of a prominent Jewish agency — only to leave of his own volition before his treatment was completed.
Yet, until his arrest in June 2007, Colmer had never been reported by anyone to the police — not by his alleged victims, their parents or community members who knew of allegations against him — a fact confirmed by a law enforcement source who notes that, until 2007, Colmer had a “clean record.”
Further, because Colmer was never reported to the police and thus came to the agency, Ohel Children’s Home and Family Services, without a mandate from the court, when he dropped out of its offender program around 2002, according to friends, Ohel was not required to report him to the authorities for non-compliance. For the same reason, his activities were not monitored and his name did not appear on any public registries designed to alert the public to those who might pose a danger to children.
The Colmer case and the way it was apparently handled illuminates a controversial debate raging in the Orthodox community in the wake of the cases of Rabbi Yehuda Kolko, Avrohom Mondrowitz and others: whether suspected cases of child sexual abuse should be dealt with “internally” — even if only initially — by rabbis or professionals within the Orthodox community, or whether they should be handed directly over to law enforcement for investigation.
No one interviewed for this story suggested that Ohel did anything illegal by apparently not reporting Colmer to the authorities after he dropped out of treatment. Indeed, laws about confidentiality that govern the doctor-patient relationship limit what a psychologist can divulge about his patient. Nonetheless, there are those who believe that in a case like Colmer’s, reporting would not have constituted a breach of doctor-patient privilege.
Treating someone who has not been mandated by the courts is “a complex and dangerous situation,” said Dr. Michael Salamon, a New York-based psychologist who has had experience in this area. “As I learned it, and teach it to others [you are permitted] to report if there is any reasonable cause to suspect that this person is a danger to himself or others. If I were a supervisor in a case [where someone who was not mandated for treatment dropped out] I would insist on calling the state hotline [of Child Protective Services] for guidance.”
Given this, Colmer’s case raises several thorny questions: Should Ohel have agreed to treat Colmer, knowing that he had never been reported to the police? Is there a will on the part of the community and its institutions to reform reporting policies and practices to plug what appears to be a gaping hole in the reporting system, one that leaves children unprotected from men like Colmer? And, most pressing of all, who, in the end, should bear responsibility for what happened to the two innocent 13-year-old alleged victims of Colmer, whose lives will likely never be the same? [...]
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Meir Briskman - refuses to divorce wife
This item is from a year ago - unfortunately he hasn't been caught yet because he clearly has misguided figures who are providing him with support.
YNET reports: Rabbinical Court shuns divorce refuser.
Panel of judges, rabbis issue ads condemning Jerusalem resident for refusing to grant his wife divorce for five years, asking public to refrain from allowing him to join any congregation, associating with him, or granting him lodging. In an unprecedented move, the High Rabbinical Court on Sunday called on the observant public to shun a resident of Jerusalem who has been refusing to grant his wife a divorce for five years.
The man, Israel Meir Briskman, fled the country despite a hold-departure order filed against him, and is presumed to be residing in the United States. In ads published in Israel and abroad, a panel of rabbinical court judges calls out to the public to refrain from allowing Briskman to join a congregation or from associating with him for business or pleasure.
The judges also ask that the public refuse him any lodging, with or without pay, including patient visitation rights."The High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem calls on the Israeli communities and the judges and rabbis of Israel wherever they may be to implement these rules of alienation and refuse the 'divorce refuser' Israel Meir Briskman any financial, physical, or legal aid until he carries out his sentence and grants his wife an unconditional, immediate divorce," the judges stated in the ad.
Briskman has been known to employ any and all tactics in order to evade the pending divorce. After the court granted his wife custody of their children, he announced that he would not allow for the divorce until he receives custody of his son. Later he made claims to property his wife's father was said to have promised the couple.
YNET reports: Rabbinical Court shuns divorce refuser.
The man, Israel Meir Briskman, fled the country despite a hold-departure order filed against him, and is presumed to be residing in the United States. In ads published in Israel and abroad, a panel of rabbinical court judges calls out to the public to refrain from allowing Briskman to join a congregation or from associating with him for business or pleasure.
The judges also ask that the public refuse him any lodging, with or without pay, including patient visitation rights."The High Rabbinical Court in Jerusalem calls on the Israeli communities and the judges and rabbis of Israel wherever they may be to implement these rules of alienation and refuse the 'divorce refuser' Israel Meir Briskman any financial, physical, or legal aid until he carries out his sentence and grants his wife an unconditional, immediate divorce," the judges stated in the ad.
Briskman has been known to employ any and all tactics in order to evade the pending divorce. After the court granted his wife custody of their children, he announced that he would not allow for the divorce until he receives custody of his son. Later he made claims to property his wife's father was said to have promised the couple.
Briskman's sentence prevents him from receiving "permission by one hundred rabbis" to wed another woman, as the sentence to grant his wife a divorce has been forced upon him by the court. The court also sentenced Briskman to a prison term of up to one year, or until he grants the divorce.
If you know the whereabouts or other information regarding Yisrael Meir Briskman, please contact the Directorate of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts immediately:Tel: +972 – 2 – 6582823 Tel/Voicemail: +972 – 2- 6582833Fax: +972 – 2-6515499 Email: Panatz@rbc.gov.il
If you know the whereabouts or other information regarding Yisrael Meir Briskman, please contact the Directorate of the Israeli Rabbinical Courts immediately:Tel: +972 – 2 – 6582823 Tel/Voicemail: +972 – 2- 6582833Fax: +972 – 2-6515499 Email: Panatz@rbc.gov.il
Wednesday, May 13, 2009
Psychologist sues over false charges
NY Daily News
An Upper East Side psychologist is suing the city for $5 million, saying a false claim that he had a hidden camera in his office bathroom nearly destroyed his career.
"They say it takes 20 years to build a reputation and 20 minutes to destroy it," said Dr. Robert Reiner, an often-quoted expert on virtual reality therapy for phobias, who has appeared on "The Tyra Banks Show," MTV and NBC.
"This has been a nightmare," he said, after filing a notice of claim in Manhattan Supreme Court
Reiner was arrested on March 26, after a patient on his third visit spotted a camera in the bathroom light bulb in Reiner's E. 90th St. office and called cops.
The Manhattan district attorney's office found a camera hidden in a light bulb, but it did not work and was not hooked up to a monitoring device, court records show.
Reiner, 56, who runs a practice of nearly two dozen counselors, was cleared of all charges on May 1. But, he said, the attention from his arrest has had a "tremendous effect" on his business and family.
His chief of staff has quit. His latest book release was delayed. His patients are canceling. His kids are mocked at school.
And his boss at New York University Medical Center, where he has worked for more than 25 years, wrote him a letter, demanding an explanation.
Reiner said he used the bulb/camera to monitor his five children near the trampoline and pool at their Westchester County home. He said he brought it to work because he needed the code number on the camera to order a new one.
A contractor working in the office at night as part of an office expansion project told investigators he could not find a bulb when the light blew out in the bathroom, so he screwed in the broken one he found on Reiner's desk.
Reiner's lawyer, Neil Wollerstein, said his client's office was full of patients when officers stormed in with guns out to confiscate the practice's computers, including patients' confidential records. [...]
Libel suits & Unintended Consequences
Going through the various thoughtful and erudite comments regarding freedom of speech certain practical conclusions can be drawn.
1) One has total freedom of speech if no one cares what you say
2) Anonymous statements and blogs are much freer and safer than those blogs or media in which the author is known. This is because there is a major barrier to first identifying the person you might want to sue.
3) Comments that are clearly seen by the average person as motivated totally to hurt another are much more readily restricted than those that are possibly motivated by good or neutral intentions.
4) Comments made about rich and powerful people are more risky than about someone who has no money and is not influential.
5) Free speech is much more likely to be allowed if the attempts to suppress it leads to a more negative view of the focus of the comments than the comments itself.
7) Free speech is more likely if the publicity around the attempt to suppress it brings to light negative information that is more harmful to the person's reputation than the original claims.
8) Newspapers and other public media are much safer places to express views which are critical of others. While the blogs are very accessible and cost nothing to express views - they are completely vulnerable to extortion of those who have the time and money to sue or at least threaten to sue.
In view of the above, it would seem that if the issues recently suppressed were picked up by newspapers or anonymous blogs, the likelihood of free speech being suppressed would be much less. The fear of antagonizing a newspaper - because of the negative publicity that would be generated and uncovered - would minimize the likelihood of attack and also would minimize the likelihood of successfully suppressing the view. In addition the newspaper has the resources that would make any attack a financially costly and uncertain enterprise
It is ironic that the recipients of the greatest benefit from this situation are Rabbi Tropper and Thomas Kaplan. It is also interesting that the issues being criticized were introduced by the R' Tropper's ardent defender - Roni. The person who precipitated the present situation will must likely find that it has become a tar baby. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
1) One has total freedom of speech if no one cares what you say
2) Anonymous statements and blogs are much freer and safer than those blogs or media in which the author is known. This is because there is a major barrier to first identifying the person you might want to sue.
3) Comments that are clearly seen by the average person as motivated totally to hurt another are much more readily restricted than those that are possibly motivated by good or neutral intentions.
4) Comments made about rich and powerful people are more risky than about someone who has no money and is not influential.
5) Free speech is much more likely to be allowed if the attempts to suppress it leads to a more negative view of the focus of the comments than the comments itself.
7) Free speech is more likely if the publicity around the attempt to suppress it brings to light negative information that is more harmful to the person's reputation than the original claims.
8) Newspapers and other public media are much safer places to express views which are critical of others. While the blogs are very accessible and cost nothing to express views - they are completely vulnerable to extortion of those who have the time and money to sue or at least threaten to sue.
In view of the above, it would seem that if the issues recently suppressed were picked up by newspapers or anonymous blogs, the likelihood of free speech being suppressed would be much less. The fear of antagonizing a newspaper - because of the negative publicity that would be generated and uncovered - would minimize the likelihood of attack and also would minimize the likelihood of successfully suppressing the view. In addition the newspaper has the resources that would make any attack a financially costly and uncertain enterprise
It is ironic that the recipients of the greatest benefit from this situation are Rabbi Tropper and Thomas Kaplan. It is also interesting that the issues being criticized were introduced by the R' Tropper's ardent defender - Roni. The person who precipitated the present situation will must likely find that it has become a tar baby. A classic case of the Law of Unintended Consequences.
NY Assembly passes gay marriage bill
NY Times
ALBANY — The State Assembly approved legislation on Tuesday night that would make New York the sixth state to allow same-sex marriage — a pivotal vote that shifts the debate to the State Senate, where gay rights advocates and conservative groups alike are redoubling their efforts.
In a sign of how opinion in Albany has shifted on the issue, several members of the Assembly who voted against the measure in 2007 voted in favor of it on Tuesday. The final vote was 89 to 52, including the backing of five Republicans.
Supporters of the bill aggressively sought new votes, particularly from Assembly members whose districts lie within Senate districts where a senator’s vote is believed to be in play. As a matter of strategy, same-sex marriage advocates said that they hoped to use those votes as a way to leverage support from senators who are worried that supporting the measure could cost them politically.
“The margin of victory and the balance of where the people come from who voted for this is broadening,” said Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democratic assemblyman from the Upper West Side who led the effort in the Assembly to gain support for the bill. “The state is demanding that we provide equality, and that’s the message here.”As the Assembly prepared to vote on Tuesday, advocates on both sides of the issue were gearing up for campaigns to sway undecided senators.[...]
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Prohibitions - need to desire & yet avoid them
Shaloh (Asarah Mamaros 3-4:28): ... Chullin (109b): Yalsa said to her husband R’ Nachman: “We have a rule that whatever the Torah prohibits there is something similar to it which is permitted. Blood is prohibited while liver is permitted. A woman is prohibited as a nidah but is permitted when she is pure, of a domesticated animal is prohibited but is permitted from non‑domesticated beasts, pig is prohibited by the similar tasting shebuta is permitted, the girutha bird is prohibited but the similar tasting tongue of fish is permitted, a married woman is prohibited but a divorce is permitted even though her former husband is alive, one’s sister in law is prohibited but she is permitted when the brother dies, a non‑Jewish woman is prohibited but a yofas to’ar is permitted. I want to know what it is like to eat meat cooked in milk?” R’ Nachman told the cook to prepare fried udder for her. This seems problematic. Why was such a distinguished woman such as Yalsa discussing such an apparently trivial topic with her husband? It is doubly puzzling why our Sages saw fit to record this in the Talmud? My father explained that this is based on the principle that all that is prohibited is because G‑d wants it prohibited – not because it isn't pleasurable. Therefore the sole reason for not enjoying these pleasures is because G‑d prohibited them. This is similar to Toras Cohanim(Kedoshim): A person should not say that it is impossible to eat pig but he should say that it is possible but what can he do since G‑d has prohibited him from eating it. Yalsa wanted to know what she was missing by observing the prohibition of meat and milk. By knowing what pleasure she was prohibited she could have a genuine desire for the prohibited pleasure that she would refrain from solely because of G‑d's command. That is why the taste of the shebuta fish is like that of pork so that a person can no what pork tastes like and know that it is good and desire it but at the same time refrain from eating it solely because G‑d told him not to eat it. The Torah has forbidden us to eat meat and milk. She wanted to know what meat and milk tasted like so she could desire and then not eat it because G‑d said not to. Therefore her husband told her to eat fried udder which has the taste of meat and milk.
Rambam(Shemona Perakim 6): We find that to have a strong desire to sin is much better and perfect than not having any desire and not suffering from avoiding the sin. … In fact our Sages say that,“the greater the person is the greater is his yetzer harah.” Not only that but they say that the reward for self‑control is proportional to effort required for that self‑control, “According to the suffering is the reward.” Furthermore they caution a person from saying, “I naturally don’t have a desire for this sin even if the Torah hadn’t prohibited this.” That is expressed by R’ Shimon ben Gamliel:” A person should not say that it is impossible for me to eat meat and milk together or that it is impossible for me to wear shatnez or that it is impossible for me to have sexual relations with this woman who is prohibited by the Torah. But in fact it is possible but G‑d has decreed that it is prohibited.”… However those things that the philosophers say are bad and that it is much better that a person not have desire for them – that refers to things which are widely perceived by people to be bad - such as murder, robbery, stealing, fraud, harming an innocent person, harming someone who has helped you, ridiculing parents and other similar matters. These well known things are what our Sages said: “That even if they had not been prohibited by the Torah it would have been assumed that they were prohibited.”… These well known wrongs are called by some scholars as “rational mitzvos”. One who desires to violate a “rational mitzva” is obviously an imperfect being. That is because a perfected person has absolutely no desire to do this type of evil and is not upset by avoiding them. However those things which our Sages were saying that it is best to overcome a desire for them - are the religious mitzvos. Because if the Torah had not been given they would not be viewed as bad at all. For this type our Sage say that it is it is only the Torah which prevents a person from doing them.
Rambam(Shemona Perakim 6): We find that to have a strong desire to sin is much better and perfect than not having any desire and not suffering from avoiding the sin. … In fact our Sages say that,“the greater the person is the greater is his yetzer harah.” Not only that but they say that the reward for self‑control is proportional to effort required for that self‑control, “According to the suffering is the reward.” Furthermore they caution a person from saying, “I naturally don’t have a desire for this sin even if the Torah hadn’t prohibited this.” That is expressed by R’ Shimon ben Gamliel:” A person should not say that it is impossible for me to eat meat and milk together or that it is impossible for me to wear shatnez or that it is impossible for me to have sexual relations with this woman who is prohibited by the Torah. But in fact it is possible but G‑d has decreed that it is prohibited.”… However those things that the philosophers say are bad and that it is much better that a person not have desire for them – that refers to things which are widely perceived by people to be bad - such as murder, robbery, stealing, fraud, harming an innocent person, harming someone who has helped you, ridiculing parents and other similar matters. These well known things are what our Sages said: “That even if they had not been prohibited by the Torah it would have been assumed that they were prohibited.”… These well known wrongs are called by some scholars as “rational mitzvos”. One who desires to violate a “rational mitzva” is obviously an imperfect being. That is because a perfected person has absolutely no desire to do this type of evil and is not upset by avoiding them. However those things which our Sages were saying that it is best to overcome a desire for them - are the religious mitzvos. Because if the Torah had not been given they would not be viewed as bad at all. For this type our Sage say that it is it is only the Torah which prevents a person from doing them.
Chareidi housing disaster
YNET reports
Following a High Court ruling, the Defense Ministry decided two weeks ago to hand over to the residents of the West Bank village of Bilin 185 acres which they claimed had been expropriated from them, a move leading to a possible new route separation fence route.
The direct result of the ministry's decision is that a project including 1,100 housing units for the ultra-Orthodox public in Modiin Illit's Matityahu neighborhood is slated to be canceled.
"This may worsen the housing shortage in the haredi sector, which has yet to receive a constitutional response," says Dr. Rina Degani, research director and managing director at Geocartography, which recently examined the situation of the haredi housing market.
According to the findings of a Geocartography survey, the growth rate in the haredi sector creates a fixed demand for some 6,500 housing deals a year – about 6.5% of all deals in the residential real estate field carried out in the past two years.
Modiin illit has some 40,000 residents due to the comfortable housing prices and the communal fabric, which meets the target audience's demands.
According to a study carried out by Geocartography's economic division, the demand for apartments in the haredi sector requires the construction of at least 4,000 new flats every year, in addition to some 2,500 second-hand apartments. [...]
Mekubal's points to ponder
mekubal wrote:
For those who readily wish Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn to press on despite danger of a lawsuit. You are giving him very dangerous advice. While I believe that he would be offered some sort of protection on account of Israeli privacy laws, on the other hand he can be in serious danger and here is why.
I realize that I asserted in a previous comment that I believed( and to a certain extant still do) that he has been trolled. However, given the way things have unraveled and that through phone conversations as admitted that he owns this blog, and that his only true defense would be to lie and say that he doesn't, something I don't believe he would do as an Orthodox Jew, we come down to the greater problem of his potential liability.
Having not fully navigated the Israeli system I will leave that out for now, in part because my knowledge there is lacking, and secondly because that is not the only place that he is liable to damages.
I will start with the US. Under US and European law libel is, "the printed communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image". Pursuant to that the Supreme Court Rulings of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc, and Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, have served to limit and define the limits of free speech in printed media.
Furthermore Supreme Court decision Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Services Co., as well as Congressional Act 47 U.S.C. § 230(the Cyberlibel law) did two primary things of which the owner of this blog has to concern himself. First it made owners of moderated blogs liable for the postings of their commentators as well as their own postings. Secondly it allowed for libel suits where ever said material was or had been viewable. In other words within the US you would be open to the possibility of being sued 50 separate times.
Then we can move on to Europe most especially nations such as England, France, and Spain which have Universal Jurisdiction laws, allowing plaintiffs who are not present within their borders to file complaints against those who are not present within their borders. All three also allow someone to be tried in abstentia for such civil cases. To put that into plain English a lawsuit can be filed there, and if R' Eidensohn is not able to make a defense in those nations he may be found guilty without ever being able to offer a defense.
Furthermore both in the US and England the person in question does not need to be specifically mentioned but only indirectly, but knowingly referenced.
If these things cannot be undeniably proven you have once again opened yourself to the possibility of lawsuit on an international scale if the referenced person truly wishes to pursue such action. As a moderated blog, even allowing comments like that to go up, you open yourself to the possibility of lawsuit, as you have to approve them. To elevate them to a main post with no substantial proof shows your endorsement and can be considered "real malice" as "real malice" is defined in US and European law as disregard for the truthfulness of the statement.
If you want to be successfully sued for libel than by all means follow the advice of Jersey Girl. Otherwise perhaps it is time to take more care in what commentators post and what you as the blog owner allow them to post.
Perhaps these latest problems, though I will admit that there was an aspect of bullying to them, especially in the requirement to remove any and all mention, despite that though, perhaps it was Hashem's way of saying it is time to clean it up.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Is it slander to say R' Bomzer is controversial?
An interesting question regarding whether a person is slandering another is whether the person's intent was solely to cause harm and whether the evidence he used would lead the average person to conclude what he did. For example an old post indicated that Rabbi Herbert Bomzer's conversion are viewed as problematic by a number of rabbis. At the same time Rabbi Bomzer was defended as a very distinguished Rabbi and talmid chachom whose conversion are not problematic. Is is slander to report that some distinguished rabbis do not approve of his conversion? Is it slander to report that there are other rabbis who disagree with these rabbis and hold that Rabbi Bomzer's conversions are beyond reproach?
Comment feature restored
Commenting has been restored. Due to the threatened legal action I have removed certain postings. I would appreciate it if any one notices any mention of "he who is not to be mentioned" left on the blog to notify me.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Battle over gay marriage in NY
NYTimes
Pose the question “Would you vote to make same-sex marriage legal?” within the gilded State Senate chamber, and you’ll hear a lot of hedging.
Pose the question “Would you vote to make same-sex marriage legal?” within the gilded State Senate chamber, and you’ll hear a lot of hedging.
Senator Vincent L. Leibell, a Republican who represents parts of Westchester, Putnam and Dutchess Counties, prefers civil unions to marriage. Still, he acknowledged that “society changes over time,” and said that he might not make up his mind until the last minute.
Senator James S. Alesi, a Republican from Rochester who is considered to be another potential swing vote, has issued only vague statements hinting that he is open to voting yes. But he also said, “My public opinion has not been stated yet, and it probably won’t be for a while.”
With six weeks left before the Legislature adjourns for the year, uncertainty surrounds the fate of Gov. David A. Paterson’s bill to legalize same-sex marriage, and lobbying is intensifying.
The measure is expected to easily pass the State Assembly, which approved a similar bill in 2007 and has scheduled its vote for Tuesday.
That means the fate of the legislation will most likely be decided in the closely divided 62-member State Senate.
There, proponents believe they have about two dozen of the 32 votes needed for approval, including those of 19 Democrats who have signed on as sponsors of the measure. [...]
Law & free speech on Internet -
mekubal wrote:
I am fairly clueless about Israeli law so I must ask, can cease and desist letters be sent via email in Israel?
From a similar case I personally had with a forum I posted on, there are a few things I do know about Israeli law.
1) You are not responsible for content that others post upon your blog.
2) Just because the blog has your name on it, does not mean that they can literally sue you or file a police complaint.
3) In order to bring action in Israel they must first directly link you through your IP address to the blog.
4) Israeli privacy laws forbid you internet-provider from disclosing your I/P account information(the vital and missing link) for any reason other than vital and immediate nation security.
5) If your internet provider does disclose your account information thus making you liable to said lawsuit and police complaint, they can be held liable for any damages that you accrue. In other words you can turn around and sue them.
All that being said. I think that you have in general just been scammed. Though since this is the internet I believe the proper terminology is Trolled.
============================
Daas Torah responded:
The above is nice in theory. But it obviously is not of relevance when the Blog is not anonymous, that a law suit hasn't been filed and that the main concern is intimidation. It is obvious that no legal process would support a law suit simply because a public figure's name is mentioned. Yet that is what the lawyer's email stated.
It is an indication of insecurity when a person can not tolerate any criticism and needs to present a carefully orchestrated view of himself to the world.
An alternative, though not necessarily incompatible explanation. is that he fears that an insignificant blogger can actually ruin his reputation. If Rabbi Tropper believes that I have the amazing power of making the Bedatz bend to my will and believes that I have succeeded in forcing them to become defenders of Rabbi Slikfin - then a naive young man might believe that I have the power to derail his run for glory - or at least be the source of bad luck. This absurd claim had been posted on Rabbi Tropper's blog - but it seems he must have realized how stupid it sounds and it is has been removed. But you the original from Rabbi Tropper's blog is posted below here
Abuse & Punishment
I heard another disturbing story about abuse yesterday. The person told me of a well known personality who has definitely abused children. So why wasn't anything done about it? It seems that he has been declared to no longer be a pedophile because he hasn't abused any one recently. It seems two rabbis have certified him to have stopped.
My question is 1) why wasn't it publicized when it was clear that he was a molester 2) why are there no consequences for his actions. 3) on what basis has he been certified not to be a molester. 4) it seems someone just filed a complaint with the police so he obviously hasn't stopped.
This individuals is known as a generous soul who regularly gives rides to kids and his house is frequented by neighborhood children.
When it comes to molesters the only issue of concern is stopping them. But this is a flawed process in which there is no transparency here as to the process that certifies that he has stopped. Community families are not informed that there is pedophile in their midst so that if they don't want to take the risk with their kids they are at least forewarned.
In addition there is absolutely no issue of punishment or even payment for the damage that they have done. One person told me he has been paying $400/ month for six years for a teenager who was destroyed by a molester. There was no suggestion that the molester needed to pay. In the many decrees of the Gaon and Rishonim there is clearly a process of not only punishment but also of placating the victim - what happened to these factors? I am in the process of finding out the answers.
Blog - Comments & Internet Explorer errors
Due to the threatened legal action I have removed certain postings. At the present the comments are disabled - but that will be changed in the near future. I would appreciate it if any one notices any mention of "he who is not to be mentioned" left on the blog to notify me.
Comments relating to this issue will not be posted on this blog - though obviously I will read them.
There also seems to be a new problem with the use of Internet Explorer. It apparently is the result of my use of scribd text windows. So either use Firefox, Chrome or click on the links in the post to read the document.
Friday, May 8, 2009
Guma Aguiar lawyer's warning letter
Yahoo! Mail
Guma Aguiar - Warning letter
Friday, May 8, 2009 10:54 AM
From:
"Eitan Gabay, Adv."
To:
yadmoshe@yahoo.com
לכבוד, מבלי לפגוע בזכויות
הרב דניאל אידנסון,
שאולזון 34,
הר-נוף
ירושלים
א.נ.,
הנדון: כתבותיך בבלוג DAAS TORAH על משפחת אגיאר
בשם מרשי, ג'יימי וגומה אגיאר, הריני מתכבד לפנות אליך כדלקמן:
1. מזה תקופת מה שהנך כותב מאמרים בבלוג שלך שבנדון אודות מרשי ומשפחתם.
2. עיון בתוכן הכתוב בבלוג מעיד על עבירה חמורה על איסור אמירת לשון הרע והטרדה.
3. התכנים בבלוג פוגעניים ועוסקים בחיים אישיים של מרשי ובני משפחותיהם. מרשיי מוצגים כמי שגיורם מוטל בספק מבלי שקיימות הוכחות חותכות לכך ומבלי שיצאה בת קול חדה וברורה המעידה כי הגיורים נעשו שלא כהלכה.
4. האמירות באתר הינן גובלות בהשמצות מרשי כאשר אין בינם לבינך כל יריבות ו/או קשר כזה או אחר.
5. בנוסף, פרסום דעותיך בציבור לגבי אופן מתן תרומות ע"י מרשי ועל החלטותיהם למי לתת הינה גובלת בחדירה לצנעת הפרט והפרת הזכות שלהם לפרטיות.
6. בימים אלה מרשי שוקלים להגיש תלונה במשטרה כנגד תכנים בבלוג ואף להגיש תביעה משפטית מתאימה נגדך בעניין. יחד עם זאת, מרשי יאותו שלא לנקוט בפעולות נוספות נגדך באם בתוך 48 שעות יוסרו מהבלוג שלך כל התכנים הקשורים במרשי ובני משפחתם.
7. אזכיר כי סירובך לבצע הסרה של התכנים כאמור לעיל ייאלץ את מרשי להורות לי לפעול כאמור לעיל, ודע לך כי הדבר יגרום לך לעגמת נפש רבה ולהוצאות רבות ומיותרות אשר תחולנה עליך.
8. התראה נוספת לא תשלח.
בברכה,
איתן גבאי, עו"ד
EITAN GABAY - LAW OFFICES
13 Ben Maimon Blvd.
Jerusalem 92262
Tel: 972-2-5610095
Fax: 972-2-5610096
Email: eitan@aglaw.co.il
Guma Aguiar - Warning letter
Friday, May 8, 2009 10:54 AM
From:
"Eitan Gabay, Adv."
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Dr. Oren - Historical perspectives/ America & Israel
A fascinating discussion of the intimate relation between America from Colonial times until the present by the recently appointed Israeli ambassador to America
Death throes of Conservative & Reform?
Jerusaelm Post
It is a precipitous moment for Jewish religious leadership in the US.While the problems are primarily financial, their impact appears to threaten the future of American Judaism.
Reform and Conservative seminaries - the institutions charged with providing the overwhelming majority of affiliated American Jews with their religious and educational leadership - face budget cuts so severe that their missions may be imperiled. The congregational arms of their movements also are in grave financial straits, and American rabbis generally face a shortage of jobs.
No doubt there are very smart people thinking about what this portends.
Those people, however, do not seem to be riding the Jewish information superhighway. Many of the stories about the rabbinate that interest American Jewish newspapers are not about the future of American Judaism. Instead, they concern whether "transgender" and intermarried Jews can be admitted to rabbinical schools, and see it as a sign of acceptance, or perhaps maturity, among the streams that a lesbian this month becomes president of the Southern California Board of Rabbis.
The idea seems to be that there are various groups pounding on the seminaries' gates: First the question was ordaining women, then gays and lesbians. Now that those groups can enter the non-Orthodox ordination programs, other groups have formed at the gate: the intermarried and transgender (women living as men, men as women, with or without surgical gender changes).
However interesting or irksome these issues are to most American Jews, these "who can be a rabbi" stories are irrelevant to the future of Jewish life.[...]
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Israeli self-defense is illegal
JPost editorial
What a busy time it's been for those who exploit international law to gang up on Israel. Let us count the ways.
Starting with yesterday's UN report compiled by Ian Martin on that incident during Operation Cast Lead at the UNRWA compound in Jabaliya, the one that generated mendacious headlines like "Israeli shelling kills dozens at UN school in Gaza."
In fact, no one sheltering at the school was killed - but about a dozen Palestinians nearby (including gunmen) were when Israel retaliated to Hamas's shelling. While Martin pointedly refused to incorporate the IDF's side in drafting his report, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon promised his cover note to the Security Council will provide some of the missing details and extenuating circumstances.
Don't go confusing Martin with Richard Goldstone's commission, which will be also be investigating the Gaza war. And don't confuse Goldstone with Richard A. Falk's "investigation" for the UN's Human Rights Council.
All this is in addition to the routine "docketing" of Israel at the UN Committee Against Torture in Geneva, partly instigated by Israel-based advocacy groups, some of which receive funding from the New Israel Fund and foreign powers. The committee's chair is Claudio Grossman, a Chilean national whose connection to the NIF figures is no secret.
If that wasn't enough, there is the Spanish legal system's persecution of top Israeli officials for the 2002 operation that liquidated Salah Shehadeh. Tragically, 14 civilians also lost their lives. But unintended civilian deaths in warfare are not unheard of. Shehadeh supervised dozens of terrorist attacks, killing or wounding hundreds of Israelis. The "universal jurisdiction" claimed by Spain and other countries - even where neither the "perpetrator" nor the "victim" has anything to do with them - verily turns the law into an ass.
Let's not forget the Durban II farce starring Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, or that it was ostensibly organized as a UN-sponsored "anti-racism" conference.
Finally, there's the unrelenting abuse of international law at every single UN body - except the essentially defunct Trusteeship Council.
WHY this obscenely inordinate investment of time, money and personnel in bashing us?[...]
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Abuse - provide evidence without testifying
Star Ledger
Children who previously talked about a sexual abuse incident but are too frightened to testify in court can still provide evidence in a trial, the [New Jersey] state's highest court unanimously ruled today.
The justices' decision upholds a jail sentence for a Long Branch man convicted of sexually assaulting a three-year-old girl.
Matt Rainey who wrote today's decision which ruled that children who previously talked about a sexual abuse incident but are too frightened to testify in court can still provide evidence in a trial.
Immediately after Terry Coder had abused her in his basement in 2001, the girl -- whose name is protected by the court -- told her mother.
"Mommy, he touched me," she said, according to court documents.
Even though the girl could not remember that Coder had abused her when she took the stand a year later, the court counted what she had told her mother as evidence against Coder.
Johanna Barba Jones, a deputy attorney general, said she was "very happy" with the decision.
"This is a way of expressing wrongs done to children who cannot express themselves ... luckily this little girl was able to use gestures and through very limited language could communicate that to her mom," said Jones. "It's clear to moms that they can share that with police and they will not go unaddressed."[...]
Self-Righteousness & Behavior - Abuse
NYTimes
Most people are adamant: They would never do it. Ever. Never deliberately inflict pain on another person, just to obtain information. Ever artificially inflate the value of some financial product, just to take advantage of others’ ignorance. Certainly never, ever become a deadbeat and accept a government bailout.
They speak only for themselves, of course. As for others, well, turn on the news: shady bankers, savage interrogators and deadbeats are everywhere.
“I remember thinking that I was just better than other people, that I would never compromise my principles,” said Jordan LaBouff, 25, a graduate student in Texas, recalling a public standoff that he and other students had with university administrators several years ago.
“Well, they gave me this award — the administration did — and I’d sworn I would never take anything from them. But of course there I was, up on stage accepting it.
In recent years, social psychologists have begun to study what they call the holier-than-thou effect. They have long known that people tend to be overly optimistic about their own abilities and fortunes — to overestimate their standing in class, their discipline, their sincerity.
But this self-inflating bias may be even stronger when it comes to moral judgment, and it can greatly influence how people judge others’ actions, and ultimately their own. Culture, religious belief and experience all help shape a person’s sense of moral standing in relation to others, psychologists say, and new research is helping to clarify when such feelings of superiority are helpful and when they are self-defeating.
“The message in this work is not that you should rid yourself of moral indignation; sometimes that’s appropriate,” said David Dunning, a social psychologist at Cornell University in Ithaca, N.Y. “But the point is that many types of behavior are driven far more by the situation than by the force of personality. What someone else did in that situation is a very strong warning about what you yourself would do.” [...]
Friday, May 1, 2009
Abuse - Ohel's view of Markey bill
Ohel
A PROPOSED STRATEGY TO REFORMS IN SEXUAL ABUSE LEGISLATION
By David Mandel, CEO of OHEL
KEY POINTS
● OHEL see’s importance in both Lopez and Markey Bills and suggests a possible compromise.
● OHEL is not in agreement with some of the positions taken by certain organizations who oppose “the window” provision.
● While OHEL suggests a one year amnesty, we believe a one year window should be instituted thereafter.
● OHEL suggests a one year amnesty from civil claims with required risk assessment, treatment and some form of probation and monitoring. Certainly no amnesty from any criminal proceedings.
Abuse - Rape & indifference
When a woman reports a rape, her body is a crime scene. She is typically asked to undress over a large sheet of white paper to collect hairs or fibers, and then her body is examined with an ultraviolet light, photographed and thoroughly swabbed for the rapist’s DNA.
It’s a grueling and invasive process that can last four to six hours and produces a “rape kit” — which, it turns out, often sits around for months or years, unopened and untested.
Stunningly often, the rape kit isn’t tested at all because it’s not deemed a priority. If it is tested, this happens at such a lackadaisical pace that it may be a year or more before there are results (if expedited, results are technically possible in a week).
So while we have breakthrough DNA technologies to find culprits and exculpate innocent suspects, we aren’t using them properly — and those who work in this field believe the reason is an underlying doubt about the seriousness of some rape cases. In short, this isn’t justice; it’s indifference.[...]
“If you’ve got stacks of physical evidence of a crime, and you’re not doing everything you can with the evidence, then you must be making a decision that this isn’t a very serious crime,” notes Polly Poskin, executive director of the Illinois Coalition Against Sexual Assault.
It’s what we might expect in Afghanistan, not in the United States.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Conversion - ecumenical panel discussion
Jewish Week
Each of the rabbis — Orthodox, Conservative and Reform — on a panel probing the Who is a Jew controversy claimed that his or her movement’s policy on conversion standards was consistent with tradition. Yet they also acknowledged that the divide among them was deep.
Two of the panelists, one Orthodox and one Reform, at last Thursday evening’s community forum, sponsored by The Jewish Week and the JCC in Manhattan, expressed concern that if compromises were not made soon, the strand that holds American Jewish religious life together may be frayed beyond repair.
Rabbi Robert Levine of the Reform Congregation Rodeph Sholom in Manhattan warned the full house of 250 people at the JCC: “We’re coming very close to the level of sinat chinam” [hatred among Jews] that brought about the destruction of the Temple. “Many Orthodox rabbis won’t walk into my shul, and that pains me,” he said, noting that the level of trust among rabbis of different denominations has deteriorated in recent years.
“The key issues here are trust and urgency,” agreed Seth Farber, who received his rabbinic ordination at Yeshiva University and is founder and director of an Israeli organization called ITIM: The Jewish Life Information Center, which helps Israelis navigate the bureaucracy of the Chief Rabbinate on matters of personal status, including marriage, divorce, conversion and burial.
Rabbi Farber cited the writings of Rabbi Aharon Lichtenstein, a prominent Orthodox rosh yeshiva in Israel, as suggesting that Orthodox authorities are paying too high a price by adhering to strict standards in defining Jewish status if their position threatens Jewish unity.
Staking a claim that Conservative Judaism meets traditional standards on conversion, Rabbi Judith Hauptman, professor of Talmud and rabbinic culture at the Jewish Theological Seminary, cited Talmudic passages regarding how one should treat a potential convert. She said each requirement is met by Conservative religious courts.
Rabbi Basil Herring, executive vice president of the Rabbinical Council of America (Orthodox), trod lightly on specifics in questioning whether non-Orthodox rabbis demand that a convert live a fully observant life.
He said that adherence to the mitzvot of the Torah has sustained Jewish life over the centuries and will continue to do so. Trust is important, he said, but added that it is equally important to be truthful, asserting that the Orthodox community has best weathered the storms of assimilation and intermarriage by maintaining halachic standards.
The most serious dispute among the panelists was between the two Orthodox rabbis, with Rabbi Farber charging that Rabbi Herring’s RCA has made conversion more strict and difficult in the last two years, through an agreement the group reached with the Israeli Chief Rabbinate.
“Admit you’re changing the standards,” he said to Rabbi Herring noting: “The new RCA standards exclude a significant number of Orthodox converts who could have converted five or 10 years ago.”
Rabbi Herring insisted that it was “a canard, false and untrue to say that RCA standards are more severe” than in the past. He said the group’s guidelines in the early 1990s were more strict, and that what the RCA has done now is take the existing guidelines and standardize them so as to increase conversions. He said there were more conversions in the last year and a half (150) than any previous 18-month period, and that another 200 conversions “are in the pipeline.” [...]
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Torah study & commonsense
Vayikra Rabbah(1:15): A rotting animal carcass is better then a talmid chachom lacking in da'as i.e., commonsense and social sensitivity. We can learn the importance of derech eretz from Moshe Rabbeinu who was the epitome of all wisdom and the supreme prophet, who led the Jews out of Egypt, performed many miracles in Egypt and the awesome splitting of the sea, went up to heaven and brought back the Torah, was involved in the construction of the mishkan. Nevertheless he did not enter into the inner sanctuary of the mishkan until G‑d invited him in".
Yofe To'ar(Vayikra Rabbah 1:15): The term da'as is referring to social sensitivity. Therefore the medrash tells us that a disgustingcarcass is better them someone lacking social skills who is despised and rejected by other people. In addition such a talmid chachom degrades the Torah. While the stench of a rotting animal can be avoided by not coming near it, a person without social sensitivities goes everywhere even though he is not wanted Consequently it is impossible to escape from him and he is an unpleasant burden….
Yofe To'ar(Vayikra Rabbah 1:15): The term da'as is referring to social sensitivity. Therefore the medrash tells us that a disgustingcarcass is better them someone lacking social skills who is despised and rejected by other people. In addition such a talmid chachom degrades the Torah. While the stench of a rotting animal can be avoided by not coming near it, a person without social sensitivities goes everywhere even though he is not wanted Consequently it is impossible to escape from him and he is an unpleasant burden….
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Memorial Day - a story
YNET
Harriet Levin isn't one of those people who will preoccupy herself asking why it happened to her, rather than to someone else. She's not someone who will try to apportion blame, or blame herself for allowing him to go to the army despite her gut feeling that something bad would happen.
Harriet Levin doesn't ask herself "what if" it hadn't happened. Harriet Levin believes in destiny. Her son's destiny was to die in a war for Israel and become part of this country.
"Mikey did what I always wanted to do and never did. He made aliyah to Israel and enlisted in the IDF," she said. "I always dreamed of doing more for my country, of coming and volunteering.
"After all, it's the easiest thing live in a big, beautiful house in the United States and to write a check for a pro-Israeli organization every once in a while," she explained. "I wanted to give a lot more, but I didn't think I'd give so much, that I'd give my son." [...]
Marriage - even for a few days?
Ben Yohoyada(Yoma 18b): When Rav visited the town of Darshis he would announce: Who wants to be my wife for a day? G‑d forbid to have doubts about these great scholars of Israel to say that they have such tremendous lust for intercourse. G‑d forbid to think that they are not able to live without a woman for a few days – something that even the crudest person is able to tolerate – and surely such holy people as these who sanctify themselves from excesses. Furthermore if it were true that these men had such uncontrollable desires – G‑d forbid – why weren’t they concerned about their own reputations and especially since they even announced it? Who would do such a public announcement? Furthermore what is the reason that this was written in the Talmud? It can’t be to debase these scholars G‑d forbid! If it were to learn the halacha – there was no need to mention their names. Please pay careful attention to the explanation that justifies their actions. That is there are times when there is a bad practice in various places that the men do no get married until after they are 30 or 40 years old. This practice is found today in Kurdistan and also in places in Europe. In the time of Rav and R’ Nachman this was the practice of Darshis and Shekuntziv. Therefore when these rabbis went to these places they would rebuke the people not to wait later than 20 to get married. But since this problem was well established in these places and many of the ignorant masses erred in these matters – the rabbis made announcements concerning themselves in order to draw attention to this in the most dramatic way. When the masses saw that the rabbis viewed marriage so important even for a few days it became apparent that this was surely true of themselves. They said that if these rabbis who are involved in Torah study day and night and they are holy people and they are also married – nevertheless they are concerned with seminal emissions and thus don’t want to remain without a woman even a short time then surely we who are unmarried with much stronger lusts – it is best we got married and not delay anymore to remain without a wife because of the issur of wasted seed….
Subscribe to:
Posts
(
Atom
)
RaP's Farewell PostI am truly sorry that you were bullied into silence. I hate bullies and bullying. It is not a cultured, let alone a Jewish, attribute.
Two quick questions for Rabbi Dr. Eidensohn/da'as torah:
Did you consult with a competent lawyer or lawyers in Israel familiar with this area of law, relating to the alleged "libel", on a blog yet, regarding your rights and defenses in the face of the alleged threatening Email you received?
I am positive that there must be those who would defend you, probably even pro bono (for free). It can still be done!
Hopefully you have retained digital copies of all the posts you deleted for your own files if further clarification needs to be made and for your own legal protection!
I assume that you have no further interest in receiving and posting my additional posts and comments on this blog from this point on.
As you know I have shared your main concerns and I have spent well over a year researching and debating the issues of the problems at hand, and this probably means that I will no longer participate in your blog.
I have no regrets so please do not feel bad for me, and I am happy to have served as a catalyst in unmasking and showing the world the true colors of those who have bullied you, and by association Rav Shternbuch and the BADATS, into silence, for who will yet have to answer in ways that they will not be able to intimidate into silence.
Kol tuv!
May 11, 2009 2:15 PM
In the US, there is freedom of speech and blogs fall under "freedom of the press, first amendment".
In the US, what this attorney tried to do to you would be considered a SLAPP (Strategic law suit against public policy) in order to silence your First Amendment right of Free Speech.
In the US, an attorney could be disbarred for filing a SLAPP and reprimanded for even threatening it.
Furthermore in many US states, you could sue someone who files a SLAPP suit against you and collect damages. (Anti SLAPP States).
If you have no right of freedom of speech in Israel, then you may as well just pack up and forget blogging because now, anyone can control every word you write just by threatening you with a lawsuit.
In the US, there are certain conditions that have to be met for libel:
1. first of all "the person who is not to be mentioned" is a wealthy and well known celebrity so the burden of proof of libel would be virtually impossible to meet. It is unheard of to get a libel judgment against a famous person because he has to prove absolute malice in your intentions. You can look at "rags" such as the National Enquirer and see that this is true.
2. There has to be no other reason for your post except that you wish to malign the person. This is impossible to prove true in this case since you are trying to understand halachic implications of many issues.
3. what you write has to be untrue and it has to be proven that you KNEW it was untrue. This is also not the case since it is quite obvious that you believe everything you write.
4. opinion - most of what is posted on this blog is opinion and not being presented as fact and therefore cannot be libel. This is why anonymous comments cannot be libelous. Nor can you be held accountable for anonymous comments.
5. no actual injury. The person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog has not suffered any financial or other provable injury.
6. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. Obviously the future of the Jewish religion is of importance to both you and the posters of comments.
7. Religious privilege - it is normal for a Rabbi such as yourself to issue religious opinions and rulings on a topic. To attempt to restrain your right of Free Speech, by threatening a SLAPP suit, in the US would also be restraining your Right to Freedom of Religion. In the US, this is a serious crime and punished as such. What if Rabbis could never say "such and such is not kosher?" That is restraint of Freedom of Religion.
I would recommend that you get in touch with Orthomom a wonderful blogger who was sued for libel. She prevailed and I am pretty sure that her attorney was free.
The threat of a SLAPP suit against your blog is indicative of the level of control that these missionaries have on the Orthodox Jewish world.
Daas Torah seemed to be a beacon of hope in what appears to be a lost battle. Now, that this blog is completely under the control of Evangelicals who are restraining MY rights of Free Speech, why even bother to fight?
I live in the US, in fact in the same state and county as the "person who does not want to be mentioned" on a blog.
Perhaps, I am the right person to file the anti SLAPP suit against the "person who does not want to be mentioned", because it is MY First Amendment Right of Free Speech is being restrained.
Furthermore, if you want to somehow host this discussion from my IP address (or something like that), I would love to be sued for libel for blogging about the "person who does not want to be mentioned".
I have a friendly relationship with some of the writers from the local newspapers and also in Brooklyn, where I used to write for a Jewish paper. My goal would be to get the name of the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog in as many Jewish and secular newspapers as possible.
Most journalists welcome a SLAPP suit because it is lots of free publicity for their publication and cause and in the end, they usually get to collect a few thousand dollars in an anti SLAPP suit on top of it.
I would really LOVE to be sued in a SLAPP by "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog". Then I could publicize and bring this cancerous issue among the Jewish people to light.
Maybe I should just start a blog for the sole purpose of discussing "the person who does not want to be mentioned in a blog" and his goal of destroying Judaism with his billions of dollars of oil money and his puppet quasi Rabbis.
If this is a topic that posters are interested in, I will do it.