Supreme court slams acquital of forgiven yeshiva student

Jpost JPost2

The Supreme Court on Monday harshly criticized Jerusalem District Court judge Moshe Drori for his decision not to convict a yeshiva student who ran over Ethiopian-Israeli parking lot cashier Noga Zoarish. The decision was apparently made in order not to harm the man's chances of being appointed as a judge in the rabbinic courts.

"This is a very severe incident. I read the district court decision and did not understand how the yeshiva student was not convicted, it is inconceivable," Justice Edmund Levy said.

Levy also questioned the sincerity of the perpetrator's remorse and public apology to Zoarish, which was one of the grounds for Drori's acquittal, pondering why he expressed no such sentiments while being interrogated by police.

"He was involved in such a severe incident and expressed no remorse. That should also be taken into account when one decides to pave the way for him becoming a rabbinic judge," Levy said.

Levy backed the prosecution's request to remove the gag order on publishing the man's name. "It's unacceptable that he be treated favorably just because he could potentially be appointed as a rabbinic judge. Why does he need to remain anonymous?" he said.

The State Prosecution launched an appeal against the acquittal Monday, and during the court session, Zoarish burst into tears.

"He asked me for forgiveness in court, and I forgave him," she said, referring to the Jerusalem District Court hearing during which the student was acquitted. "But his apology wasn't genuine."[...]

Allow victim to suffer to prevent collateral damage to community?

Under what circumstances should I avoid saving a person from harm because of the collateral damage? Does it make a difference what type of colleteral damage would occur or how many people would suffer?

Is there a difference if the collateral damage is to a single individual, family, school or community. Sources?

If the rabbonim say that the saving the victim of abuse would mean that community's main yeshiva would be destroyed by lawsuits and as a result 90% of the kids would go off the derech. Does the victim have the right to insist on taking measures to protect himself from harm - even if collateral damage results?

Or what about the future. The molesting has stopped but the victim wants to punish perpetrator to deter other perpetrators in the future. Community says that they are not willing lose yeshiva for the sake of protecting against future acts. Does the victim have to go along with their decision. Sources?

Does the non compliance with the community wishes constitute a transgression of any specific mitzva? Or is it simply that the community has the right apply all types sanctions to achieves but there is no actual sin.

Another way of looking at it is that the community should have taken proactive measures to make sure this dilemna never arises - but since it didn't can they avoid the consequences?

Responsibility - absolved if case is reported to rabbi/police?

I need some sources regarding the question of whether a person is absolved of responsibility by going to a rabbi or police. For example we know that a person is obligated to try and save another from harm. If he sees another drowning or hears a plot against him he needs to either save him or have others save the person.

When I discover a case of abuse and report this information to a rabbi or the police - am I free from future obligation? Or should I view that I have merely delegated the task to another but that the primarily responsibility remains with me. This seems to be the issue of a shomer who hands his job over to another shomer. If there is any damage the first shomer is responsible.

שולחן ערוך (חושן משפט רצא:כו): שומר שמסר לשומר, חייב, אפילו אם הוא שומר חנם ומסר לשומר שכר, דאמר ליה: את מהימן לי בשבועה היאך לא מהימן לי בשבועה. אפילו אם ידוע לכל שהשני טוב וכשר יותר מראשון. הגה: מיהו שומר שמסר לשומר לפני המפקיד, ולא מיחה, פטור (מרדכי פרק המפקיד). לפיכך אם דרך הבעלים להפקיד תמיד דבר זה אצל השומר השני, הרי השומר הראשון פטור מלשלם, והוא שלא ימעט שמירתו; אבל אם מיעט שמירתו, כגון שהראשון היה שומר שכר והשני ש"ח, או שהראשון שואל והשני ש"ש, פושע הוא הראשון ומשלם, אע"פ ששאל או שכר בבעלים. ואם יש עדים ששמר השני כראוי, נפטר שומר ראשון. ואפילו לא היו שם עדים, אם השומר הראשון ראה ויכול הוא לישבע, הרי זה נשבע ונפטר (ועיין סימן ע"ב סעיף ל').

Is that true in the case of an obligation to protect another person from harm? In other words if I report a case of abuse do I need to do a follow up that the case is in fact being properly dealt with? Additional if I try once to help and fail - do I need to keep trying?

Children recant sex abuse charge after father serves 20 years

Associated Press

Former Vancouver police officer Clyde Ray Spencer spent nearly 20 years in prison after he was convicted of sexually molesting his son and daughter. Now, the children say it never happened.

Matthew Spencer and Kathryn Tetz, who live in Sacramento, Calif., each took the stand Friday in Clark County Superior Court to clear their father's name, The Columbian newspaper reported.

Matthew, now 33, was 9 years old at the time. He told a judge he made the allegation after months of insistent questioning by now-retired Clark County sheriff's detective Sharon Krause just so she would leave him alone.

Tetz, 30, said she doesn't remember what she told Krause back in 1985, but she remembers Krause buying her ice cream. She said that when she finally read the police reports she was "absolutely sure" the abuse never happened.

"I would have remembered something that graphic, that violent," Tetz said.

Spencer's sentence was commuted by then-Gov. Gary Locke in 2004 after questions arose about his conviction. Among other problems, prosecutors withheld medical exams that showed no evidence of abuse, even though Krause claimed the abuse was repeated and violent.

Despite the commutation, Spencer remains a convicted sex offender. He is hoping to have the convictions overturned. [...]

Rabbi Tropper apologizes!

I wish to thank Roni for the following:

Rav Sternbuch on the EJF

Posted by Rabbi Tropper Posted in EJF Posted on 11-07-2009

Tags: EJF, Rav Sternbuch

Rabbi Tropper:

Is it true that your blog claimed that Rav Sternbuch told someone that he was against nasty attacks on EJF?

Rabbi Tropper responds:

I was so told. Subseqently someone emailed me that what I reported on the blog was not true and that Rav Sternbuch had not spoken to anyone regarding the attacks on EJF. I thanked him for notifying me and told him That I would correct it ASAP.

That Person Emailed me again thanking me.

I then Removed it from the Blog immediatly and notified that person that it had been corrected.

I apologize for the mistake.

EJF - Making peace with R' Tropper

This Shabbos Rav Sternbuch told me about a telephone call he received this week. He said that someone had called him and said that it was time to make peace between R' Tropper and myself. That they were tired of being criticized. He told the caller that he was not getting involved in the matter. The rest of our conversation is not for publication.

The issue in fact is not between me and R' Tropper. It is between R' Tropper and Rav Sternbuch. All that we have been asking for the last two years is the halachic reasoning of their poskim for what they are doing. [The teshuva from Rav Reuven Feinstein is not adequate because it doesn't address their proselytizing efforts] Then Rav Sternbuch either agrees or disagrees with it. If R' Tropper is too shy to make an appointment I will be glad to make an appointment for him. It would be helpful if he would take Rav Reuven Feinstein along. Rav Sternbuch's views have simply served as the justification for me to raise questions and criticize the published descriptions of what R' Tropper is doing. If Rav Sternbuch is satisfied with what they are doing I will be too. If R' Tropper doesn't want to do that, teshuvos from Rav Eliashiv or Rav Reuven Feinstein could serve the same function. This is really the absurdity of the situation. The issue could have been resolved a long time ago with minimum effort.

Obama & his Russian diplomatic "successes"

Washington Post Charles Krauthammer

The signing ceremony in Moscow was a grand affair. For Barack Obama, foreign policy neophyte and "reset" man, the arms reduction agreement had a Kissingerian air. A fine feather in his cap. And our president likes his plumage.

Unfortunately for the United States, the country Obama represents, the prospective treaty is useless at best, detrimental at worst.

Useless because the level of offensive nuclear weaponry, the subject of the U.S.-Russia "Joint Understanding," is an irrelevance. We could today terminate all such negotiations, invite the Russians to build as many warheads as they want and profitably watch them spend themselves into penury, as did their Soviet predecessors, stockpiling weapons that do nothing more than, as Churchill put it, make the rubble bounce.

Obama says that his START will be a great boon, setting an example to enable us to better pressure North Korea and Iran to give up their nuclear programs. That a man of Obama's intelligence can believe such nonsense is beyond comprehension. There is not a shred of evidence that cuts by the great powers -- the INF treaty, START I, the Treaty of Moscow (2002) -- induced the curtailment of anyone's programs. Moammar Gaddafi gave up his nukes the week we pulled Saddam Hussein out of his spider hole. No treaty involved. The very notion that Kim Jong Il or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will suddenly abjure nukes because of yet another U.S.-Russian treaty is comical.

The pursuit of such an offensive weapons treaty could nonetheless be detrimental to us. Why? Because Obama's hunger for a diplomatic success, such as it is, allowed the Russians to exact a price: linkage between offensive and defensive nuclear weapons.

This is important for Russia because of the huge American technological advantage in defensive weaponry. We can reliably shoot down an intercontinental ballistic missile. They cannot. And since defensive weaponry will be the decisive strategic factor of the 21st century, Russia has striven mightily for a quarter-century to halt its development. Gorbachev tried to swindle Reagan out of the Strategic Defense Initiative at Reykjavik in 1986. Reagan refused. As did his successors -- Bush I, Clinton, Bush II. [...]

Does R' Tropper view Rav Reuven Feinstein as a posek?

R' Tropper recently rejected the views of a prominent Midwestern Rav - who is opposed to EJF - as not being those of a posek but merely a talmid chachom. R' Tropper explcitly states that he views Rav Eliashiv and Rav Dovid Feinstein as poskim - but that he views most talmidei chachom as not being considered poskim - even those who answer halachic questions. Obviously he does not view himself as a posek. But this declaration - printed below - would imply that he does not view the head of his halachic committee - Rav Reuven Feinstein as a posek. That would mean that he is acknowledging the radical halachic changes of his organization are being certified by a prominent talmid chachom - but not someone that R' Tropper considers a posek! He also acknowledges that he has received words of encouragement from the great contemporary poskim - but does not mention a single letter explicitly supporting EJF halachic innovations.

If in fact he did not mean to imply that Rav Reuven Feinstein is not a posek - he should explicity state this and apologize for his unintentional slight to Rav Reuven's kavod.
=========================
Rabbi Tropper's blog

Rabbi Tropper I heard that there is a Rav who is a Posek in the Midwest, who is strongly opposed to the EJF. Are you aware of this opposition?

Answer: Rabbi Tropper says:

No I am not aware. I am sure that who ever this Rav is he must be a Talmid Chochom. However I am not aware of any Posek in the Midwest at all.

I heard from the Great Gaonim Maran Harav Yisroel Gustman, zt’l and Maran Harav Yitzchok Hutner, zt’l on different occasions that not every Rav is a Posek. A Posek is one who knows Bavli, yerushalmi, Michilta, Tur bais Yosef, 4 chelkei Shulchan aruch in great depth. One who could analyze a halachic issue and bring proof from various places in Shas to the issue at hand.

These words are similiar to the Daas Torah I heard from the great Posek, Harav Yosef Eliyahu Henkin, zt’l. Rav Henkin, then went on to tell me a story about the Maharsham, zt’l who would bring 8 proofs from shas to support his Psakim.

One who knows all of Mishne Berura albeit by heart is a Rav not a Posek!

One who memorizes all of the Piskei Chazon Ish or the Psakim of the Tshbiner Rav or the Igros Moshe is NOT a posek.

I am not aware of any POSEK in the midwest. I know of a few respected rabbonim in the Midwest. Even great Talmedei Chachomim, but not Poskim.

In Eretz Yisroel We have 3 or 4 SENIOR Poskim, Maran Harav Yosef Sholom Eliyashuv, shlit”a, Maran Harav Shmuel Wosner, shlit”a (The Chazon Ish said about Maran Harav Wosner, shlit”a that if Moshiach would arrive during his time, he would be a Member of the Sanhedrin). Maran Harav Ovadia Yosef, shlit”a whose knowledge in all aspects of Shas and Poskim is legendary.

In the U.S. many Bnei Torah refer to Hagaon Rav D. Feinstein, shlit”a as a great Posek.

Many of the newcomers to Yiddishkeit ask a Shaila to a Rav.

They Believe that the most simple question answered by a Rav is from a “Posek”. We should educate them properly.

The danger in this confusion is that when Maran Harav Wosner, shlit”a or Maran Harav Eliyashuv, shlit”a issue a Halachic decision and a Rav in the Midwest or in NY argues, it becomes in their mind a “Machlokes haposkim”. That is Dangerous!

A Rav in NY or in LA or in the Midwest who argues with the above mentioned Poskim is not classified as a “Machlokes Haposkim”.

Hence, the Gedoley Haposkim and the Gedoley Horoah, shlit”a who strongly endorse the efforts of EJF to stop fraudelent conversion amongst Klal Yisroel, speak to those who respect Daas Torah.

As much as a Moreh Horoah can say, his words are secondary next to the words of the Poskei Hador.

A hand written letter of support for Netzach Mishpachas Yisroel was written by Maran, the great Gaon Harav Chaim Kanievsky, shlit”a and read at the conference held recently in Yerushalayim. Another letter of elaborate support came from the Zkan Rosh Hayeshivos in Eretz Yisroel.

Rav Sternbuch - between a blessing & curse

41

Chareidi kids peacefully demonstrate for Shabbos

YNet JPost

Several thousands ultra-Orthodox children who attend the Haredi Community's elementary schools rallied on Wednesday near the Safra parking lot at the entrance to Jerusalem, in protest of what they view as the Shabbat desecration in the capital.

The rally began with a march from the Shabbat Square in the city towards Shiveti Tsrael Street. The children, some of them dressed in sackcloth, held up signs condemning the opening of the Karta parking lot on weekends. Several hundred adults accompanied the rally. [...]

British court rules Judaism is racist

Haaretz

Jewish schools are guilty of racial discrimination if they reject children on the grounds of their parentage, a British court has ruled.

In a decision that has shocked the country's 300,000-strong Jewish community, the Court of Appeal held that ongoing personal acts of faith, rather than birth or conversion, must define who is a Jew.

In doing so, the court overturned an earlier high court judgment upholding the decision of the JFS in London (the oldest and largest Jewish school in Britain) to deny a boy admission because it did not recognize his mother?s conversion.

The three judges, one of them Jewish, ruled that any selection criteria that gives ethnic priority to a Jew is showing racial discrimination. They cited the Race Relations Act 1976, which was introduced to prevent discrimination on the grounds of race.

The ruling means that Jewish schools of any denomination, whether privately or state funded, will be barred from giving priority to children who are born Jewish or who convert, and instead must consider how the children and their families practice their Judaism.

The move throws into disarray the admissions arrangements for Britain's 97 Orthodox schools and may force them to introduce "faith tests" - like church schools, which require fortnightly attendance at Sunday services. Such a radical intervention - unprecedented since the time of Oliver Cromwell - calls into question the relationship between church (or synagogue) and state. [...]

RaP - important conversion articles

"New rules have Diaspora converts waiting on Israel"

http://jta.org/news/article/2009/07/07/1006367/new-rules-have-diaspora-converts-waiting-on-israel

"Rabbi offers unorthodox solution to civil marriage debate"
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1098606.html
Religious Zionists war against Haredim on Conversions:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1245184921517

"Zionist rabbis break law for converts".

This is a really important article that covers the situation from the perspectives of the Haredim to the Religious Zionists in Israel, including mentioning EJF and responses to it. It is truly a Conversions War.

Rabbinate converts 60 active missionaries

Arutz Sheva

The Chief Rabbinate has been given a list of more than 60 recent converts to Judaism who continue to believe in Jesus – and are active missionaries.

Rabbi Shalom Dov Lifshitz, chairman and founder of the anti-missionary and anti-assimilation Yad L’Achim organization, met in recent days with Chief Rabbi Shlomo Amar and provided him with the list. Rabbi Amar was reportedly “shocked” at seeing that the Chief Rabbinate had authorized the conversions

An immediate solution was found for the future, however. Rabbi Lifshitz presented Rabbi Amar with a list of 17 questions that should be asked of any prospective convert. Under the assumption that the missionaries will either not lie straight out, or that the specific questions will help detect the lies, it is hoped that missionaries will be spotted and weeded out from the conversion rolls.

Yad L’Achim had prepared the list of names, ID numbers and addresses of more than 60 people who were active in missionary groups before, during and after their long conversion process to Judaism. The "converts" were then accepted as members of religious communities, and their children were accepted into religious schools. [...]

Proselytizing - Purpose of countermissionaries

JPost

I am completely misunderstood. As a countermissionary, people think that it's my goal in life to make people miserable, to persecute poor Christians living in our country and to tell people what they should believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. People think that a countermissionary's raison d'être is to destroy freedom of religion and to create within Israel a state similar to that of the Muslim countries that surround us, where no one has any freedom to believe anything other than those beliefs held by the thugs who hold power. Again, wrong. Some people think I hate Christians. Wrong also.

Believe it or not, the purpose of a countermissionary is ultimately to improve Jewish-Christian relations. As it says in Robert Frost's poem, "Mending Wall," good fences make good neighbors. By teaching Jews why we are not Christians and by teaching Christians to respect our boundaries, we improve relations between the two faiths. Blurring the lines between the two faiths doesn't serve to bridge the gap caused by fear and misunderstanding; it weakens Judaism and causes Christians to have less respect for the Jewish people. Breaking down the walls breaks down the distinctiveness and the different callings of each faith system, and only fosters more hatred and fear.

The purpose of the countermissionary is to strengthen the Jewish people and to teach Christians that we have reasons for choosing to reject their faith. When they can understand and accept this, we can progress to a level of rejecting their faith without rejecting them as people, and the two peoples can live side-by-side in mutual respect and understanding, agreeing to disagree.

WHEN WE say that it should be illegal to proselytize in Israel, we are not saying that a Christian doesn't have the right to believe as he wishes or even to worship God as he sees fit. What we are saying is that a Jew has the right to live in the Jewish state in freedom, without needing to worry about being harassed by someone trying to convince him that his faith is not good enough, that he needs to accept Christianity's concept of God to be able to even have a relationship with God in the first place, or that his child will be convinced to abandon the faith of his forefathers.[...]

Conversion - What is a Reform ger?

Ora asks the following:

What is the difference between no Giur and a non recognised Giur?

A young man is fascinated by some aspects of judaism. However, orthodox judaism poses some problems of philosphical and of practical nature. (e.g. He does not want to oppose homosexuality, his wife is not jewish and he does not want her to convert because of him, he lives far from the synagogue he wants to attend and would have to drive to go there, he does not really believe in "exclusivity" of religion, i.e. that all other religions but judaism are false)

But he considers a reform giur, since reform judaism is the religion he would like to choose for himself, because it addresses the problems he has with orthodox judaism.

Now: anyway, a reform Giur is not recognised. So it will be considered null and void by orthodox rabbinate. So there is no problem that the person will not be shomer mitzwoth. Is it therefore legitimate for him to convert (reform), knowing that his reform giur has "limited validity"? In other words: Is reform judaism a legitimate way of being mekaim 7 mitzwoth bney noach?

Proselytizing as a reality tv show

JPost

Have you heard the one about a rabbi, an imam, a priest and a Buddhist monk?

It's no joke, but rather Turkey's latest reality show, which brings together leaders from four religions who attempt to convert non-believers to their respective faiths.

Penitents Compete features select religious authorities seeking to make believers out of 10 atheists - on camera.

Istanbul-based television station Kanal T plans to launch the show in September.

The prize for the converts? A trip to a holy site of the winner's newfound religion: Muslims will go to Mecca, Christians to the Vatican, Jews to Jerusalem and Buddhists to Tibet.

But the religious establishment and personalities are neither amused nor impressed. Jewish authorities, for example, are vehemently opposed to the program, since according to Halacha, active proselytizing is forbidden.

As a Jew, it is against our world outlook to seek to proselytize," Rabbi David Rosen, director of the American Jewish Committee's Department for Interreligious Affairs, told The Jerusalem Post. "We respect other people's attachment to their faiths."

Rosen added that proselytizing is dubious by nature and could be destructive to the religion and its reputation.

Rosen is also opposed to the show from a more universal perspective.

"I think it's very tasteless," he said. "Matters of faith, profession and lifestyle commitment are not something that should be decided on a reality show."[...]

Chareidi Protest - media reporting & perception of violence

YNet reports

In a rare move, an ultra-Orthodox protestor sat in front of the cameras in Jerusalem on Saturday night in order to explain the position of haredim protesting for the past few weeks against the opening of a parking lot in the capital on Shabbat.

The protestor, who identified himself only as Moshe, spoke about one of the less violent demonstrations this week: "Within the haredi community it was stressed that the protest will only be for adults. The haredi community in general does not use violence.

"The violence last week and until now was only from youth on the fringe. No one has picked up a rock or thrown anything in the haredi community, even not objects such as were described in the secular press, like diapers and such."

"We come, we yell 'Shabbes' (Yiddish for Sabbath) because it is painful for us. This is what we will continue to do. What the lead scholar of the religious court tells us," explained Moshe. [...]

Rav Sternbuch/ Parah Adumah

41

Abuse - Rabbi's prime responsiblity is protecting people from harm

In addition to rabbis being the gatekeeper to those who want to utilize resources from the secular government - when the Jewish community lacks the power to properly protect the children – they have a much more fundamental function.The Jewish community is not absolved of its obligations to its members just because the secular government can step in when asked. In fact the Jewish community must first do all that it can to protect its members – before involving the secular government. In other words if the Jewish community can in fact protect its members there is theoretically no basis for permitting contacting the secular authorities. What in fact are the obligation of the Jewish rabbis and community leaders? There is a fundamental requirement that applies to all Jews – especially rabbis and community leaders. This is expressed in a number of mitzvos including the following:

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. Similarly if one saw his fellow man drowning in the sea or being attacked by bandits or wild animals and he had the ability to save him himself or hiring others to save him – and yet he didn’t save him. 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 fellow man when he had the ability to do so – has transgressed the prohibition of “don’t stand idly by the blood of your fellow man.

It would follow from the above that the leaders have an obligation to make sure that molesters do not get jobs dealing with children. Being a leader doesn’t exempt a Jew from this mitzva. In fact he bears greater responsibility because he has greater power. That means that they need to notify and warn people concerning potential molesters. If they know or even suspect that a teacher or community member is a molester - they need to publicize that there is a real concern and children need to be watched carefuly. It also means that there needs to be a reliable registery of all those that jobs in yeshiva to have a full background check. They need to be fingerprinted. It also means that all information – which includes rumors – needs to be readily shared and accessible. There have to be sanctions that can be applied to someone who is a molester – even if it means harming the molester's family and/or yeshiva.

In other words if the Jewish community insists Jews can not go to the secular authorities with their complaints and concerns because of the laws of moser and a chillul haShem – then they have the full responsibility of the Torah obligation to protect people from harm. What are they doing to fulfill this responsiblity?

To be continued

When reporting abuse is permitted - gedolim should not do it

Rav Tzvi Gartner (Yeshurun 15 page 637) notes that the Maharam Shick (C.M. 50) was asked about the case of someone’s brother who had died suddenly and the deceased brother’s wife was suspected to having poisoned her husband. There was much circumstantial evidence and a partial confession that she had in fact murdered her husband. Gedolim wrote to the Maharam Shick that they were astonished why he was silent when it was obviously a mitzva to destroy evil. He replied that he was silent because there weren’t any witnesses to the killing and even if she had in fact poisoned her husband it was only gramma (indirect killing). Therefore according to the Torah she was not liable to the death penalty. Consequently she should not be reported to the secular justice system since they make judgments based on confessions (which is not accord with Torah law). However the Maharam Shick ultimately decided that it was permitted to report her to the police based on the gemora (Bava Metzia 83b) concerning R’ Eliezer ben R’ Shimon who reported Jewish thieves to the government because he was authorized by the king. However the Maharam Shick noted that while reporting her was definitely permitted according the halacha, but the gemora in Bava Metzia also indicated that it was inappropriate for gedolim to be involved in reporting others to the secular authorities. He noted that this was also the view of the Rashba that was cited by the Beis Yosef in Choshen Mishpat 338. An even greater proof that it is not desirable to inform on others to the secular authorities - even when there is a possible danger not to report - is found in the Rambam (Hilchos Yesodei HaTorah 5:5). Rambam rules that if non‑Jews have specified that they are looking for a certain Jew and that they will kill all the Jews unless he is handed over to them - if that Jew is deserving of the death penalty he can be given to them to save the others. However the Rambam notes that this halacha is not to be taught in advance. This is also the view of the Yerushalmi (Terumos 8:4) which says that even though informing is permitted in this case but it shouldn’t be done by pious people…. Therefore the Maharam Shick concluded that even though one can not protest if other’s inform the police in these cases because they are following the halacha and they have many poskim to rely on – nevertheless gedolim should not actively involve themselves in reporting but should rather do nothing.

RaP: Proselytization in Latin America

MISHPACHA Jewish Family
Weekly 2 Tammuz 5769
Pages 38 – 45"

RaP: Mishpacha magazine for hire continues in its path of publishing stories that promote proselytization, such as in the path with highlighting reaching out to the doubtful Subbotniks and the questionable Jews of Poland by Shavei Israel, and many such articles that seem to always land up mentioning the Anusim/Marranos in a good light, when their status is highly doubtful after 500 years of being lost.

Puerto Rico to Pupa: Rabbi Avraham Goldstein’s Journey from Delivery Boy to Ger Tzedek

By Barbara Bensoussan

With his Monsey residence; Chassidic ensemble of shtreimel, beard, and peyos; and juicy Yiddish, it’s hard to believe that Rabbi Avraham Goldstein’s roots lie in Puerto Rico. But that’s precisely where his unusual journey to Judaism began. Goldstein proceeded through a Williamsburg delivery route to an Orthodox conversion, to yeshivos in Baltimore and Brooklyn and the Pupa Chassidus. Now a violin dealer who’s made it his mission to advocate for South American geirim, he approaches all his diverse roles with an unbounded sense of joy in Judaism.

RaP: If this is all there was to his story it would be fine, but he has taken on more roles for himself than merely being a regular Jew.

"…fourteen-year-old Eduardo Torres…wanted nothing more in December of 1981 than to leave Puerto Rico and go to cold, inhospitable New York…some twenty-eight years have passed since then, but today Torres, better known in the community as Rabbi Avraham Goldstein, lives with his wife and children in Monsey, runs his own business and is ceaselessly busy helping geirim, baalei teshuvah, and anyone else who might benefit from his support."

RaP: Nowhere in this article is it made very clear who exactly gave him semicha to be ordained to undertake the rabbinical counseling and pastoral work, even though he spent time in a few yeshivas and some Chasidishe kehilas.

"Goldstein’s efforts to aid converted Jews and baalei teshuvah in South America ultimately culminated in the creation of an organization entitled Toiras Jesed [Chesed], which has the help and haskamah of Rav Chaim Eliezer Brown and Rav Yitzhak Mandel of Monroe"

RaP: What kind of "haskamah" is this? It should at least be in writing and should have been published with the article that is after all promoting this evidently proselytizing missionary cause, to give it proper Halachic legitimacy.

"Toiras Jesed even mounted a brand-new community designed specifically for geirim in the countryside of Puerto Rico

RaP: Throughout this article, the word "geirim" is used VERY loosely and ambiguously and it's very obvious that it often means people who WISH TO BECOME geirim, but who are not yet at the point where they can be Halachically and officially referred to as "geirim". In any case, why would people who have converted 100% need a separate community in far-off Puerto Rico? when almost all dayanim performing legitimate conversions insist that a gentile who has become a ger tzedek must live in a Torah community or be very near to one where geirim can lots of guidance, and not be detached from the world in a far-off Potemkin village of people who are being kept in seclusion it seems until they can become true gerim, but then, why the need to provide such a service at all isn't it according to Halacha to DISCOURAGE geirim and not to help them by building sponsored villages for them? [To continue click on this link]

Abuse: Competing Jewish and secular authority I

In order to understand the dynamics of abuse, it is first necessary to understand that it is not simply the relationship of the perpetrator and the victim to a society which has the power to punish and protect the individual. There are in fact two competing systems that deal with the issue of abuse. Much of this book will be dealing with the relationship between these two systems. These two systems are the Jewish community and the secular government. At times in history the Jewish community was largely autonomous and thus there are many Jewish laws dealing with the obligation of the Jewish community to help protect the abused and sanction the abuser. On the other hand there are also times, such as the present, where the Jewish community is largely powerless in instituting programs and sanctions on its members and therefore the actual power to protect and sanction is found in the secular government.

It is important to keep in mind that even in the relatively powerless state the Jewish community is today – there is an important requirement of Jewish law that the authority of the Jewish community be acknowledged – even if it is only as to authorize the involvement of the secular government. In Jewish law this concern is manifest in three different laws 1) not to utilize the secular legal system if possible - since that degrades the importance of the Jewish courts 2) the concern with the prohibition of moser (informer) and 3) the perception of kiddush HaShem (positive perception of G‑d’s chosen people) of chillul Hashem (negative perception of G‑d’s chosen people).

The first one is self‑evident and permission is often just a formality. However the second one of mesira (informing) is a much more serious issue. Failure to acknowledge the role of rabbis and Jewish courts as gatekeepers to the secular authorities - with absolute veto power - can lead to catastrophe. A victim or his family going directly to the secular government can lead to severe social condemnation and rejection from the Jewish community as well as the threat that a informer loses his place in the World to Come. At one time being labeled as a moser was literally a death sentence – either by being killed by fellow Jews or because of the social ostracization which meant neither the Jewish community or the Christian-secular society would acknowledge the person. Not only did any Jew have the right to kill the moser, but it was also a death sentence socially as well as spiritually. Social ostracization in the ghetto mean not only that no one would socialize with the moser or do business with him – it also meant that his family was denied elementary needs such as circumcision or burial as well as marriage partners. The law of moser is detailed extensively in the Responsa literature and is codified in the Mishna Torah of the Rambam as well as the Shulchan Aruch. Jews take it very seriously.

The third law concerning Chilul HaShem is also concerned with degradation of the status of the Jewish community. It results when abuse is reported and revealed to the world. Literally it means profanation of G‑d’s reputation in the world. Jewish theology states that the Jews were chosen by G‑d to be a light and guide to the other nations. Since Jews are G‑d’s people, they not only serve as role models but are expected to be perceived by the nations of the world as being morally and ethically superior. Furthermore the Talmud notes that the status G‑d has in this world is directly tied to the status of the Jewish people. Thus only when Jews are perceived as wonderful and morally superior, then G‑d is also perceived as wonderful and superior This is not just a esoteric theological point but also is reflected in the laws of martyrdom. A Jew is required to die rather than degrade the status of Jews and G‑d. This issue of Chilul HaShem and its positive aspect Kiddush HaShem (sanctification of G‑ds reputation) can be achieved in one of two processes. The first is in fact to ensure the superiority of the society and the elimination of the negative elements or alternatively to conceal the bad aspect and to reveal only the good – or even to fabricate them. For example one can either work to eliminate child or wife abuse or one can falsely proclaim that contrary to the general social norm – the Jewish society has minimal or no incidence of such behavior.

Consequently the first question that must be asked is whether the victim is allowed to go to the secular authorities for protection or to punish the abuser. The significance of this step is largely ignored or misunderstood by the secular authorities – or the hesitancy is assumed to be a vestige of the Dark Ages. However the intervention of the secular authority into the affairs of the Jewish community is a very serious affront to the perceived authority of the Jewish community. It severely disrupts the community itself. The public nature of the processes of the secular system changes forever not only the reputation of the perpetrator but also the victim and the family, friends and community institutions associated with both. [To be continued]

Paleontology & Creationism meet in Kentucky

NYTimes:

Tamaki Sato was confused by the dinosaur exhibit. The placards described the various dinosaurs as originating from different geological periods — the stegosaurus from the Upper Jurassic, the heterodontosaurus from the Lower Jurassic, the velociraptor from the Upper Cretaceous — yet in each case, the date of demise was the same: around 2348 B.C.

“I was just curious why,” said Dr. Sato, a professor of geology from Tokyo Gakugei University in Japan.

For paleontologists like Dr. Sato, layers of bedrock represent an accumulation over hundreds of millions of years, and the Lower Jurassic is much older than the Upper Cretaceous.

But here in the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky, Earth and the universe are just over 6,000 years old, created in six days by God. The museum preaches, “Same facts, different conclusions” and is unequivocal in viewing paleontological and geological data in light of a literal reading of the Bible.

In the creationist interpretation, the layers were laid down in one event — the worldwide flood when God wiped the land clean except for the creatures on Noah’s ark — and these dinosaurs died in 2348 B.C., the year of the flood.

“That’s one thing I learned,” Dr. Sato said.

The worlds of academic paleontology and creationism rarely collide, but the former paid a visit to the latter last Wednesday. The University of Cincinnati was hosting the North American Paleontological Convention, where scientists presented their latest research at the frontiers of the ancient past. In a break from the lectures, about 70 of the attendees boarded school buses for a field trip to the Creation Museum, on the other side of the Ohio River. [...]

EJF - recent Jerusalem conference

Yeshiva World News

It was by all accounts an unprecedented gathering of leading kiruv rabbonim from around the world, as well as rabbonim in cities and towns throughout Israel. The event took place from June 15 -17 at Jerusalem’s Inbal Hotel. The sponsor was the Eternal Jewish Family International, which is in the midst of a major global expansion of its activities to support rabbanim and batei din involved with intermarried couples who genuinely strive for a halachic conversion. It also assists kiruv organizations that are on the front lines in the fight against assimilation, such as the co-sponsors of the event: Arachim, Ohr Somayach, Hidabroot, Lev L’achim, Shuvu, and Nefesh Yehudi. In the U.S., it also includes the Gateways organization. [...]

EJF - attracting non-Jews to proselytize - is permitted

The self (?) appointed spokesman for R' Tropper - Roni has left a new comment on "EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni": I am making it into a post because of what it reveals about the true nature of Eternal Jewish Family. What Roni is asserting here - and I received a letter from R' Tropper to the same effect - There is nothing wrong with proselytizing as long as one does not walk up to a non-Jew and try and convert him. However putting out come-on notices on the internet, ads in the newspapers, or offering all-expenses paid vacations in swank resorts to listen to top speakers promoting conversion is allowed since the non-Jew is attracted to come and you don't go to him. Furthermore it is asserted that Rav Reuven Feinstein - the posek for Eternal Jewish Family - permits this. They also insist that this is not proselytizing but merely kiruv. (You might also notice Roni's liberal use of ad hominem arguments - something which R' Tropper vehemently protests when they come from his critics). In sum the position of Eternal Jewish Family (with the apparent backing of Rav Reuven Feinstein ) is that encouraging non-Jew (especially intermarried couples) to convert is not halachically prohibited - as long as they accept the obligation to keep all the mitzvos in the chareidi way. Thus attracting non-Jews and then pressuring them to convert is not problematic - as long as in the end they agree to keep all the mitzvos as a chareidi Jew. It is also clear from their advertisements that they don't restrict their activities to intermarried couples. I would suggest R' Tropper find a less embarrassing defender.

RAp, talking like a real am hooretz, can you start answering the question "Where in Shulchan Oruch is there aN ISSUR to encourage an intermarried person to convert",

You are unable to start any conversation. You and Dt (and the third stooge) cannot even begin to have a rational discussion over this matter, you do not know where to being so you start with the new testament of

"You are not Rav Yosef Karo writing the Shulchan Oruch and interpreting it definitively nor are you the only one who says "where does it say in the shulchan oruch this and that" like a beginner. Some things are so pushut that the shulchan oruch doesn't have to spell them out,",

like a real am hooretz....you and your colleagues shout from the top of your longues for years about this terrible tragedy and issur and after your introduction of false sources (like a real ignoramus that you are) you now state that this is "so poshut the the SO does not have to spell it out", yet the SO does not find it so poshut to spell out that you are not allowed to convert for the sake of marriage?!?!

All your questions do NOT HAVE ONE HALACHIK SOURCE, BUT YOUR NEW TESTAMENT! You are such a boor that you cannot even begin to bring some halachik points mentioned by Rav Sternbuchwhose points were STRONGLY REJECTED BY RAV MOSHE FEINSTEIN, RAV HENKIN, RAV SZ AURBACH, RAV Y KAMENETZKY AND MORE!

yOU SHOTEH OTZUM "NEW TESTAMENT" IS SOMEONE WHO CHANGES THE LAWS OF YIDDISHKEYT! AND FOR THE UMPEENTH TIME YOU CAN REPEAT LIEK THE BROKEN RECORD, BUT RT DIDN'T BEGIN TO MAKE THE MISSIONARY CONVERSIONS THAT YOUR FRIEND BOMZER MADE...YOUR KRUMMER BROKEN RECORD AND THE SOUR CHOLLENTS ARE GETTING WORSE BY THE DAY YOU DON'T QUALIFY EVEN FOR A "MEGALEH PONIM BETORAH" AS YOUR KRUMKEYT HAS GOT NOTHING WITH TORAH...

So that people do not forgeth the content: The question posed to RAP. DT and the third stooge was: Where is the source in HALACHA that it is ossur to encourage intermarried cpules to covnert???

THese fellow twist and turn but are unable to talk about the issue...

CR Amar bars R' Sherman from conversion cases

JPost

In a move that pits him against the haredi rabbinical establishment and endears him to thousands of converts to Judaism, Chief Sephardi Rabbi Shlomo Amar issued a written order that effectively bars a controversial haredi rabbinical judge from adjudicating in conversion cases.

"Recently, conversion cases have become the focus of public scrutiny," wrote Amar in a letter to Rabbi Eliyahu Ben-Dahan, administrative head of the Rabbinical Courts. "Groups have taken advantage of the controversy surrounding these cases to attempt to limit the jurisdiction of the Rabbinical Courts. As a result, I am exercising my power... to personally choose panels of judges that will rule on conversion cases."

Amar's directive would allow him to remove from a conversion case any judge - but it is seen as being directed, in particular, at Rabbi Avraham Sherman, a judge on the High Rabbinical Court who one week ago issued his second highly controversial halachic opinion on a divorce case involving a woman who converted to Judaism.[...]

EJF backer Tom Kaplan loses lawsuit

Haaretz

[....] Thomas S. Kaplan, claims to have donated "tens of millions of dollars," according to official court documents. In the lawsuit, Kaplan challenged **** ability and right to manage the foundation, but the judge, Robert Rosenberg of the 17th Judicial Circuit Court in Broward County, Florida, threw out the case, finding Kaplan's claims had no merit. Kaplan objected to the more than $7 million he says his nephew spent in 2008 to advance what the lawsuit called his "claim that he is the Messiah and to promote his messianic mission," according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, which reported about the lawsuit when it was filed in January. According to the paper, the family feud is likely rooted in a separate lawsuit involving the two. The second case involves the company the two founded, Leor Exploration & Production, which was sold for about $2.5 billion after discovering vast natural gas reserves in Texas, and which is the foundation of *** newfound wealth.[....]

Rav Sternbuch - Role of Shevet Levi

51

Protest against Gay Parade - 5 p.m.

Today there will be a peaceful protest - authorized by the police - at Kikar Shabbat at 5 p.m - against the parade.

HaRav Moshe Sternbuch, shlita and other rabbonon will speak.

There are reports that HaRav Reuven Feinstein, shlita will also be there.

JPost reports:

The Jerusalem gay pride parade, which regularly riles up religious and haredi city residents, is scheduled to take place Thursday under tight security, as haredi-secular tensions are already running high in the capital over the municipality's plan to open a parking lot on Shabbat.

The annual march, which is organized by Open House, Jerusalem's small gay and lesbian center and is expected to draw a few thousand people, has stirred repeated controversy in the past. This year, however, the haredi community has decided to avoid public protests in an effort to avoid giving the event additional publicity.

The parade is viewed by most religious Jews - as well as by many traditional Jews and by Christian and Muslim religious leaders - as an abomination and an anathema to biblical values and the holiness of Jerusalem. A public opinion poll has found that two-thirds of Jerusalem residents were opposed to holding such an event in the city.[...]

EJF - Halachic justification/ / Roni

After two years of repeated requests - our chaver Roni has succeeded in providing us with two critical pieces of information regarding Eternal Jewish Family. 1) The teshuva of Rav Reuven Feinstein, shlita - which provides the halachic rationale for EJF's kiruv (proselytization) of the non-Jewish spouse in mixed marriages 2) the explanation presented below of why there are no written haskomas from the many gedolei Torah who are actively associated with the organization or at least attend their conferences.

I would like to publicly thank Roni for his tenacity and desire to present the truth as he sees it and the countless hours he has spent trying to explain and defend R' Tropper's activies. It has obviously been an unpleasant experience for him to constantly face and explain to those of us who are less than sympathetic to what is going on. I will also reiterate what I have said a number of times before - I think that R' Tropper and his associates are working leshem Shamayim. However that doesn't preclude the possibility that their approach can be harmful and fail as Roni admits below. I will be transferring a number of comments from the previous posting that are relevant to this thread. Please keep your comments to the point, respectful and avoid personal attacks.

With these pieces of information I think it is possible to have a more productive discussion of these issues. I would like to note that Roni seems to feel Rav Reuven's interpretation of his father's position and other statement as Daas Torah. I apologize if I misunderstood this and I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. I just want to reiterate a conversation I had with Rav Dovid Feinstein regarding this issue of his father's authority. He said, "I never heard my father justify his psak by saying that it was Daas Torah." Rav Moshe clearly states this in his introduction to Igros Moshe, the essence of his rulings are sevoras. His rulings are to be judged by the perceived validity of his sevoras. He also acknowledges that he is capable of error but that since he has put so much time and effort in arriving at the conclusion which he thinks is correct - one should not be hasty to dismiss it but to seriously analyze his opinion. I don't think that his son's views should be approached with a higher level of authority than that of his father.

[Roni asked that I add the following]

Before I respond to your recent post: I must reiterate and please post this as an addendum to your head post: That the*TESHUVA* IS Rav Reuven's; but the second issue the (the explanation why there are no written haskomos to the *organization* (not that there are not *halachik teshuvas* and discussions, BECAUSE THERE CERTAINLY ARE! PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE WHAT i SAID), ARE MINE ONLY AND MAY NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE REAL REASONING BEHIND THAT! BUT MY FEELING IS THAT THESE (AND MAYBE THERE ARE OTHERS) ARE THE REASONS WHY THEY WOULD NOT GIVE A *HASKAMAh* TO A INDIVIDUAL ORGANIZATION! (AS PROBABLY HAPPENS IN *SOME* OTHER ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT A DIFFERENT NATURE).

PLEASE DO NOT ATTRIBUTE THAT TO RAV REUVEN OR TO RAV TROPPER FOR I AM SAYING THIS ON MY OWN.

Roni wrote in response to Mekubal: ( I have made a number of corrections in to the original post)

4) the most important question: Why does he not get haskamot?

I'll give you possible answers which do not mean that they do not agree with him. a) Being that it is a novel approach. Practically speaking this method was not used especially with such an intensity therefore any respected RESPONSIBLE POSSEK would not necessarily want to to put his paper to endorse an organization if Chas Vesholom it does not succeeded to reach the hopeful goals.

b) Maybe others may follow suit and misuse the idea of the organization to take it a step further and perform these conversions without kabbalat hamitzvot. He does not want to take this public step to put his name on paper to that level.

c) and no Rabbi puts his name to sign on an organization which may in the future stumble on occasion and do something that is not correct and then people might mistake that this particular action had the approval of the Rabbi as he signed on the organization.

But on the other hand Rav Reuven partakes himself as member of the Organization. He is involved in guiding them in the Halachik Shaylos and so on. You can see the Teshuva that I posted earlier (and I"ll try BLN to scan it to Dt) as the teshuva Rav Reuven wrote to EJF where he rules on the focal question of the blog to Rav Tropper and he cites that his father the Posek HaDor HaRAv Moshe Feinstein of B"m permitted the issue in certain conditions (which is exaclty what EJF attempts to follow).

Rav Reuven Feinstein: Kiruv and intermarriage

Rav Chaim Ozer Grodinski(Achiezer 3:28): Concerning the common practice of converting women who are married to Jews - according to the straight halacha it is not corrrect to convert them. That is because they are converting for the sake of marriage. Therefore even after marriage she is prohibited to him as is clear from the Rashba (#1205). While previously I had written to be lenient in these cases and I based myself on the Rambam (Pe’er HaDor 132) and Rav Shlomo Kluger also paskened leniently in an actual case. Nevertheless the fact is that there is not genuine acceptance of mitzvos in these cases. It is quite obvious that their hearts are not with the Jewish people since they do not observe Shabbos or niddah and they eat unkosher food as I wrote in the previous letter. This problem has already been noted by by the Beis Yitzchok who concluded that a proper beis din would not be involved in this. And regarding the issue of governing the non‑Jewish children…However the writer is correct that a good beis din should not be involved in this type of conversion. Nevertheless I don’t see that it is proper that the rabbis of the generation should make an open protest against conversion. That is because in the eyes of the masses it would be viewed as a chilul HaShem to prevent the women to convert and in particular their children since according to the straight halacha it is possible to convert them.

Mekubal's translation/analysis of Rav Eliashiv's teshuva (3:140)cited below by Rav Reuven Feinstein

Roni,

First a translation italics are my own comments in the translation:

From all of this it seems obviously we are missing parts already please provide those Roni that a mixed marriage, by means of this the non-Jewish spouse takes part literally they join themselves to or with in shiurim there is a good probability that it will enter into their hear to convert, and by means of this it causes the Jewish man or woman to be saved to return in repentance, there is to see in this b'diavad circumstance that there is to take hold of the understanding that it is permitted to teach Torah to a Goy if his mind is to convert. But in a situation that that this reason is not relevant, there is no place for a heter, this is Ossur.

Let us enumerate the conditions of the above heter:
1) Intermarriage 2) The Non-Jew seeks out and joins shiurim 3) It is permitted to allow them to take part b'diavad 4) Since there is a heter to teach torah to a non-Jew who is converting we can extend that to this case.

To be clear, R' Eliashiv makes a chumra(that one should not teach a person in the the process of Geirut Torah), as this opposes what is written in the Sh"A, but that is OK one can be Chumradik.

Then he removes his own Chumra in the case of an intermarried couple. If the non-Jewish spouse seeks out Jewish learning. His reason for this is that they may be convinced to convert, and thus in a round about way cause the Teshuva of their Jewish spouse.

What this leaves out is any mention of encouraging. Nowhere does R' Elishiv say לאמץ להתגייר he simply says that by them deciding to take part in Jewish learning there is a good chance that they will decide to convert, and we should not stop them.

To sum up. You brought an incomplete Teshuva, and presumably only the part that you thought supported your opinion. Examination of the language and grammar shows that this clearly does not support your position of actively seeking out or encouraging conversion. This is a heter to allow non-Jews in intermarriages who wander into shiurim, to sit those shiurim, that's all.

===================
Rav Eliashiv's view on kiruv to intermarried couples as reported by Rav Efrati

==================================
Rav Reuven Feinstein

Homosexuality & Judaism / R' Freundel

Jonah website

Introduction

Homosexuality, once a word whispered only with revulsion or derision, is now out in the open for all to see and hear. In fact, homosexuality and its attendant issues have become big news.

Whether it is the rapidly spreading, and ever-more frightening AIDS epidemic, or the increase in sympathetic "gay" characters in the theater and in literature, or the widening legal battles over the status of homosexuals, one cannot go very far in contemporary society with out confronting this once extremely closet-bound topic.

Traditional Judaism, too, has been forced to confront the issue as "gay" individuals and "synagogues" have appeared on the Jewish landscape, often appealing for support from the liberal segments of the Jewish community.

Certainly, an authentic Jewish response must begin with the biblical prohibition against homosexuality. The Bible unequivocally states that a homosexual act between two consenting adult males is a capital crime.

Therefore, homosexuality is an activity that no traditional Jew can engage in, endorse, accept, or approve of (recent televised statements to the contrary notwithstanding)

Despite this initial biblical negative, there is much to discuss regarding our attitude to the homosexual, the issue of the homosexual's place in the community, the question of approach and the treatment of the homosexual, and the problem of the homosexual's rights and acceptance in society. In addition, we must consider why the Bible and Jewish thought reject homosexuality keeping in mind as we do that female homosexuality, though forbidden, is not nearly as serious a crime as is its male counterpart.

Sen. Menendez - Israel not created by Holocaust

Sen. Menendez - a fellow Democrat - corrects Obama's mistaken Arab view of the role of the Holocaust in the creation of the State of Israel.

Conversion dilemma in Latin America

JTA

[...] It all began seven years ago when Vargas, now 51, became part of a movement in Bogota of religious seekers.

“As I did, most of the people involved came from Christian roots,” he said. “And we found in Judaism an answer to our inquiries.”

But Vargas’ conversion hit a key snag: Jews.

First, Orthodox Jews in Colombia refused to accept Vargas and 200 or so others as would-be Jews, vehemently disavowing association with them and refusing them access to the community’s mikvahs for conversion.

The group, which calls itself Maim Haim -- Hebrew for “living waters” -- turned to religious authorities in Israel for training and, they hoped, eventual conversion, but it was stymied when Colombia’s Orthodox Jewish leadership contacted rabbinic authorities in Israel and warned them against accepting the would-be converts.

Main Haim eventually found a rabbi in Israel willing to teach its members, and in 2007 the rabbi and two colleagues convened a Jewish religious court, or bet din, and converted 104 of them, including Vargas.

Still, many Jewish institutions in Colombia refuse to accept them as members. [...]

Rav Sternbuch - the Abomination Parade

Rav Sternbuch

Missing in Tel Aviv - Avraham Lemberger

YNET

Police have called off the search for 69-year-old Avraham Lemberger from Netanya, an Alzheimer's patient who has been missing for about 10 days. Nonetheless, officials believe that the missing man is still alive and is in Tel Aviv.

However, Lemberger's son, Nitai, told Ynet Tuesday that he is not optimistic, saying that "the situation isn't looking very good."

Israel's PR - Twitter

Haaretz

An Israeli envoy to the U.S. said on Tuesday that Twitter, the short messaging website, has revolutionized Israeli diplomacy and become a leading advocacy apparatus.

David Saranga, the Consul for Media and Public Affairs, said that in the past the diplomatic service had to wait until someone published an article presenting Israel's standpoint, whereas today, they use Twitter to spread Israel's message to thousands of followers at a fast pace. [...]

Arabs self-defeating reaction to Netanyahu's speech

JPost Khaled Abu Toameh

The Palestinian Authority leadership's hysterical, hasty and clearly miscalculated response to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's speech at Bar-Ilan University on Sunday night is likely to boomerang because it makes the Palestinians appear as "peace rejectionists."

The PA, perhaps, has every right to be angry with Netanyahu's statements. However, its leaders should have been more careful in choosing the right words to express their sentiments.

Even before he completed his speech, several PA officials and spokesmen used every available platform to declare their total rejection of Netanyahu's ideas, especially with regards to the establishment of a demilitarized Palestinian state and recognition of Israel as a Jewish state.

Some went as far as hurling personal insults at Netanyahu, branding him a liar, a fraud and a swindler. Others hinted at the possibility that, in the wake of his strategy, the Palestinians would now have to resort to another intifada.

PA representatives are now saying that Netanyahu "cannot even dream of finding one Palestinian to talk to."

One senior official in Ramallah announced shortly after the prime minister finished his address that the Palestinians won't resume peace talks with Israel for at least a thousand years.

The harsh response of the PA is the direct result of high hopes that its leaders have pinned on the administration of US President Barack Obama.[...]