Mendelssohn & Modernity: Think Tank topic

Update: Prof. Samuel Feiner (New Perspectives on the Haskala) Secularization only reached its  peak in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, then becoming a mass phe­nomenon of such proportions that the various churches, including the rabbin­  ical elite, were, in many parts of Europe, pushed to the sidelines, and the state  and modern culture provided services, institutions, and values that replaced  religion. But in the eighteenth century, the roots of secularization first  emerged among both Christians and Jews. Religion still maintained its hold  on many people, but rationalist criticism of religions grew, the deist worldview  took shape, anticlerical trends were strengthened, and amid conflicts and  struggles, the authority of priests and rabbis was weakened. In the eighteenth century, the culture of the modern city offered a secular  substitute for the experience of religious ritual in the form of entertainment,  the consumption of luxuries, and fashions that changed with dizzying fre­quency. Ambitious individuals, seeking to live as free men, unrestrained by  religious discipline, became more self-confident. The birth of the "new world"  was attended by the repressed voices of the freethinking Jews and the angry  voices of the "congregation of believers." A penetrating look into the life of  European Jewry, with the help of several perceptive individuals who left  behind fascinating testimonies, reveals dramatic changes that occurred in that  century. It discerns not only the various channels through which religion was  weakened but also identifies religiously lax and skeptical Jews whose existence  was not previously known to us.

The Torah u-Madda Journal
The Hatam Sofer’s Nuanced Attitude Towards Secular Learning, Maskilim, and Reformers 2002-2003  Footnote 110. R. Hirsch felt that had Mendelssohn completed his work, the Reform movement might never have come into being. R. Hirsch termed Mendelssohn, “one of the noblest sons of Israel” and “a strictly religious Jew, and yet . . . brilliant and highly esteemed as the German Plato.” R. Azriel Hildesheimer, founder of the Rabbinical Seminary and head of the Adat Israel community in Berlin, termed Mendelssohn “the great worldly sage.” He claimed that Mendelssohn was a loyal adherent of the Jewish religion, but that his disciples and children crudely distorted the essence of his philosophy. Mendelssohn, therefore, could not be held responsible for their actions. S. R. Hirsch, Iggerot Zafon (Jerusalem, 1952) Letter 18; Jeschurun (Frankfort, 1885), 833-834; Mordechai Breuer, Modernity Within Tradition (New York, 1992), 58-59, 61, 71; Meir Hildesheimer, “Moses Mendelssohn,” note 105 above: 111-112.

6 more former students accuse Y.U.of covering up sexual abuse

Forward   Six more former students have come forward with accusations against Yeshiva University, days after 19 former high school students filed a $380 million suit charging that Y.U. covered up decades of physical and sexual abuse. [...]

Shmuel Goldin, a leading Modern Orthodox rabbi, said Y.U.’s response to the allegations has been “prompt and thorough.”

Goldin added, “There is a sadness that everyone feels when people have been hurt, and a sense of solidarity with the victims and a hope this will reach a resolution that will bring peace and healing to all involved.”

But one of the survivors, who is a plaintiff in the lawsuit, does not see it that way. “What’s really crazy about the Jewish community is that nobody cares,” said the survivor, who asked to remain anonymous. “There is a complete lack of interest in this whole thing.”

Kellner injustice: Demonstration for Kellner on Thursday

Brooklyn, New York - July 10, 2013 - Today, members of several large abuse advocacy organizations announced that they would be joining together this Thursday to protest unfounded charges from the Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes's office against Sam Kellner, a father who reported his son's allegations and heroically encouraged others to do the same against notorious abuser Boruch Lebovitz in 2010.

Kellner stands falsely accused of having blackmailed a witness into testifying against Lebovitz but as reported in The New York Times and The Jewish Week, prosecutors recently told the trial judge that they found their key witness was unreliable despite Kellner's defense having asked the DA for a month to look into the credible allegation that the witness against Kellner was being manipulated.  Furthermore despite the case being unprosecutable at this point the DA has still refused to drop the charges. Said witness has changed his story on several occasions and has been found to have been receiving money for expenses from an activist in the Orthodox Jewish community, Zalmen Ashkenazi, a Lebovitz supporter he previously claimed he did not know.

Just received this letter:

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

Hi I am a Satmar Brooklyn Jewish Hasidic Father and as a child who was myself sexually molested i cannot speak up to my abusers but ask you to please help out. 

Tomorrow morning will be a rally in downtown Brooklyn in support of Sam Kellner, A father of a victim abused by Rabbi Baruch Mordechai Lebovits, a notorious child molester who has harmed many children, 

As reported by the Jewish Week, the New York Times, The New York Daily News and others, Sam Kellner is being prosecuted by Brooklyn DA Hynes based upon allegations brought to the DA by Lebovits' son & friend Moshe Freidman, known as Moshe Gabba, The head assistant to Satmar Rabbi Zaly and his father the old Satmar Rebbe, which will deliver Hynes His block vote to get reelected! 

We are respectfully calling upon Mr. Hynes to immediately drop the charges against Sam Kellner and to also conduct an investigation to determine how this case was allowed to be brought in the first place. 

Join us this Thursday at 11am outside the DA's office at 350 Jay Street in Brooklyn to show your support for Sam Kellner and justice.

If you have any questions about the details of this event feel free to email its organizer Chaim Levin at: chaim89@gmail.com

Further details:

https://www.facebook.com/events/194120940750790/

Thanks!

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

NY Times   Brooklyn prosecutors had been scheduled on Monday to open the trial of an Orthodox Jew charged with paying a child to falsely testify that he was a victim of sexual abuse. 

But in a dramatic reversal, they told the trial judge that their key witness was no longer trustworthy, indicating the potential collapse of a controversial case that highlighted the complicated relationship between District Attorney Charles J. Hynes and the politically influential Orthodox community.[...]

The filing of charges against Mr. Kellner prompted criticism from advocates for victims of sexual abuse who viewed him as a whistle-blower. It also undermined the conviction of Mr. Lebovits, which had been a high-profile achievement of the district attorney’s campaign to persuade members of the insular Hasidic community to cooperate with authorities in such cases.[...]

The problems with the cases against Mr. Lebovits and Mr. Kellner have raised new concerns. Among them is why separate units of the office pursued cases that were directly at odds with each other: the sex crimes bureau prosecuting Mr. Lebovits and the rackets division prosecuting Mr. Kellner. Both relied on a witness who court records show was addicted to drugs. 

The concerns come even from inside the district attorney’s office, where some have worried that Mr. Lebovits’s lawyer, Arthur L. Aidala, had undue influence.[...]

28 years prison for father who repeatedly raped 6 year old stepdaughter - because he claimed they were in love

YNET     This item shows that the most disgusting examples of abuse can be perceived by the perpetrator as being wanted by the victim.

The Jerusalem District Court gave a nearly unprecedented punishment to a father who raped his stepdaughter hundreds of times over a period of seven years, beginning when she was six. The man was sentenced to 28 years in prison after he was convicted of hundreds of counts of rape, sodomy, indecent assault, sex crimes and additional sex charges. [...]


 During the trial, the father expressed remorse and said he saw the deeds as a “romance” which the two share.

Lakewood is driven by the fear of being called a sheigetz

Just had a long conversation with some insiders of the Kolko case. The simple question raised was,   "What is the way to change Lakewood's approach to dealing with child abuse?" It is obvious that they don't respond to halachic arguments and it is also clear that the rabbis lack the moral backbone to stand up for what they feel is right. They can't even muster the courage and decency to apologize for driving Rabbi "S" out of Lakewood - on a mistaken belief that he was a moser. 

Appeals to stop the suffering of children don't carry any weight - because their insistence  that  following the directive of a beis din is paramount even when children are being destroyed by molesters. They claim, mistakenly, that without a psak from a beis din that a person is a moser for going to the police. However the beis din system is incompetent and impotent. 

Bizarrely the beis din that Lakewood had to deal with child abuse has been disbanded. Mickey Rottenberg claims that he was told to disband it because it was too sensitive to the claims of the victims. He said in an interview with Jewish Week 12/06/11 that he was told to do this by Rav Malkiel Kotler. However Rav Malkiel Kotler denies the truth of this statement. So who is running Lakewood - Rav Malkiel Kotler or Mickey Rottenberg? Apparently the Lakewood rabbis are too embarrassed or chicken to answer that question.

In sum, Lakewood is a society that  while giving lip service to halacha is in fact concerned with one thing - the fear of being called a sheigetz. 

D.A. Hynes case against abuse whistleblower Kellner - blows up in his face

Jewish Week  On the eve of his scheduled trial date, prosecutors turned over to Sam Kellner’s defense attorneys evidence that appears highly damaging to Brooklyn District Attorney Charles Hynes’ case against the chasidic sex abuse whistleblower, prompting his lawyers to call for an “outside investigation.”

Kellner, a resident of Borough Park, is charged with paying a witness — a man The Jewish Week refers to as a “Yoel” — to fabricate claims of sexual abuse by Baruch Lebovits, a cantor and prominent member of the Munkacs chasidic community. Kellner, whose son is also an alleged Lebovits victim — and who brought additional Lebovits victims to the police — is also charged with attempting to extort money from the Lebovits family via emissaries sent to Lebovits’ son Meyer.

The evidence, which was turned over last Friday, three days before the scheduled start of the trial on Monday, July 8, includes notes of interviews prosecutors conducted with a key witness over the past two weeks. In the interviews, Yoel made a series of inconsistent statements, including some that directly contradict his grand jury testimony against Kellner.

For example, while Yoel testified in the Kellner grand jury that he knew Lebovits from synagogue, in a July 1 interview with Nicholas Batsidis and Joseph Alexis, two assistant district attorneys, and Rackets Division Chief Michael Vecchione, he claimed that he had “never seen Baruch Lebovits in his life.”

In the same interview, Yoel also denied picking Lebovits out of a photo array, which, along with Yoel’s statements to a detective, led to Lebovits’ arrest. However, five days earlier, on June 26, he told prosecutors that Lebovits “could have molested me. [I] can’t really say.”

During the course of these interviews, Yoel also told prosecutors that the reason he came forward with his allegations against Kellner was because, according to their summary of the conversation, he had become “disenchanted” with him after Kellner failed to pay him “a fee that the two had agreed upon for his false testimony.” However, in the Kellner grand jury, Yoel testified that Kellner gave him approximately $10,000 to testify against Lebovits.

All of the inconsistencies and contradictions in Yoel’s statements seriously undermine the prosecution’s case against Kellner, experts say.

Former Students File $380 Million lawsuit against YU for abuse coverup

Forward     Nineteen former students of a Manhattan high school run by Yeshiva University have filed a $380 million lawsuit against Y.U. accusing administrators and teachers of covering up decades of physical and sexual abuse.

The lawsuit, filed July 8 in U.S. District Court in White Plains, N.Y., alleges a “massive cover-up of the sexual abuse of [high school] students…facilitated, for several decades, by various prominent Y.U. and [high school] administrators, trustees, directors, and other faculty members.”

The assaults are alleged to have taken place during the 1970s and 1980s, at a time when Y.U. faced severe financial problems.

In New York, criminal and civil cases of child sexual abuse must be brought before a victim’s 23rd birthday. However, Kevin Mulhearn, a lawyer representing the victims, argues in the suit that the statute of limitations does not apply because Y.U. fraudulently covered up the abuse. [...]

The Mitzvah of Tzedakah by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt [...]THE THOUGHT PROCESS ONE SHOULD HAVE

Whoever shows compassion to the poor – Hashem shows compassion to him.  (247:3).

The thought process that one should have is that just as he is constantly begging Hashem for assistance in his own business ventures so too should he listen to the cries of the poor.  He should also realize that what goes around comes around and either he, or his son or grandson might need assistance in the future as well.  Whoever has compassion for others, earns compassion from others.  (Ramah 247:3).

HOW TO GIVE

• One should give Tzedakah while standing up and with the right hand.  This is true even if one puts it in a Tzedakah box.   If one is giving Tzedakah in the middle of prayers, however, one may remain seated.

• As soon as one has given the money to the poor person, or to his messenger or to the gabbai, one has fulfilled the Mitzvah.

• One must give charity even if it is 100 times to the same person.  This does not mean with no waiting period in between.  However, some authorities write that from morning to evening one is still obligated to give.

---

[1] SA 247:1

[2] The Steipler Rav in Kehilos Yaakov Bava Basra #8.

[3] Tosfos BB 8b Akfai; Lev Aryeh Chullin 110; Sefer Haflaah, Ksuvos 49a.

Halachic justification for Kolko's defenders

 I have been getting feedback regarding the views of the Lakewood rabbonim who defend Kolko. The picture is getting clearer and better balanced. Unfortunately it is also clear that there are rabbonim - including major poskim who have approved the course of action of Rav "S" but are intimidated against publicly acknowledging this. It is disgusting that they feel threatened  and will not admit what they view is the proper halacha in this case. Rav "S" clearly has major poskim to rely on.  Hopefully this public presentation of views will lead to improvements in dealing with sexual abuse and less fear in presenting differening views.

My understanding of the the view of the Lakewood rabbonim is basically this:

Kolko is a nebach but he is not a pedophile (i.e., he doesn't have a sexual desire for children) and he definitely is not a rodef. He is a lonely guy who befriended a kid (11 years old) who had no friends. They alleged that this kid seduced him into doing things he didn't want to do and would never had done without being seduced. Therefore he can not be viewed as dangerous to others and is "innocent" of being a pedophile. He clearly does not deserve jail time since he didn't initiate any wrong behavior - but was seduced. This apparently is also the view of Rabbi Belsky. Since they don't view Kolko as a rodef there was no heter to go to the police and thus the father is a moser. Consequently the rabbonim didn't do anything wrong by calling the father a moser and driving him out of Lakewood - and do not need to apologize. Rather Rabbis "S" is the aggressor for calling the police and causing Kolko to be given a severe jail sentence - which helps no one and is totally unjustified. Anyone who doesn't understand these elementary facts doesn't belong in Lakewood.

Update: This explanation not only is nonsense but it is immoral. They are shamelessly putting the blame on the victim. At least they acknowledge that Kolko is guilty of what he was charged with. The issue shifts simply to whether the father had the right to call the police. [see below] Aside from the fact there is no evidence that Kolko was "seduced" - it is a common excuse given by pedophiles

However their allegations still don't make the father a moser for calling the police. A problem with their view is that an adult male who was seduced by a male child is still chayiv misa. If the adult has been seduced numerous times by this or other children and yet  insists on remaining in contact with these and other children - and "allows" himself to be seduced - isn't this the classic rodef [Sanhedrin 73a) that one needs to save him from himself to stop him from sinning? He obviously can not control himself. So even if you want to say he is not a rodef to harm the child [a problematic assertion] because he allegedly is not initiating the sexual contact and the child allegedly asked for it - why isn't he a rodef for sin and thus needs to be stopped? In Kolko's case it has been alleged that he has had sexual contact with more than one child - and yet he refused to quit teaching  and being a camp counselor. Lakewood rabbonim would have had a stronger case if they had required Kolko to quit teaching and spend his day packing candy in Brooklyn where he would have minimal contact with children. To base a case on the ridiculous assertion that an 11 year old made him do it is embarrassing! It is fairly common for a pedophile to complain that he had been seduced by the child.

See this article in the National Catholoci Reporter where a priest with a PhD in psychology claims the children seduced the priests  You might want to do a google search at the outrage that claim caused.
========================

I think the key to understanding the differing views in the Kolko case is a passage in Rambam Chovel u'Mazik (8:11). In a section dealing with moser he states, "And thus one who distresses the public can be turned over to the police but not one who distresses the individual."

According to the simple reading - the Rambam is talking about verbal distress - not financial or physical distress and certainly not threatening life activity. Thus calling the police is permitted to stop someone from verbally abusing 3 or more people. This is the understanding of the Chasam Sofer  as well as the Pnei Yehoshua and the Minchas Yitzchok. They view the basis for the Rambam as Gittin (7a). Thus they understand that if the distress is in fact financial or physical (e.g., beating) - then they claim the Rambam would permit calling the police even for an individual. There are other sources in the Achronim that permit going to the police if someone is physically assaulting another person - even though it is not life threatening. Obviously sexual abuse of a child - even not involving penetration - would justify calling the police

However others view this Rambam as talking about someone like the counterfeiter who is endangering the community or a missionary. The Tzitz Eliezar applies it to a teacher who is abusing young girls. Since there is no Torah prohibition against this he applies this Rambam to justify calling the police. However if the teacher only abuses a single young girl - then he holds that the Rambam doesn't provide a heter. Rav Eliashiv disagrees with the Tzitz Eliezer because he claims abuse destroys the victim and thus it doesn't matter whether it is boy or girl and how many. It is pikuach nefesh and the abuser is a rodef. However it is argued by the Lakewood rabbis that if the adult does not take the initiative then he would not be viewed as a rodef and there is no heter to call the police.

Thus we have three levels - 1) one can only go to the police if it involves either life threatening actions or to save the abuser from doing a sin that he is chayiv misa for (e.g., mishkva zachor) and there is no other way of stopping the act. The concern is only when the adult is clearly the aggressor rather than mutual consent - otherwise the adult is not considered a rodef. This is apparently the view of Rav Scheinberg and Rav Menashe Klein (Sanhedrin 73a). 

2) It is permitted to go if the child's psychological health is threatened by the abuser and this would increase the likelihood of suicide or severe psychological trauma. This is apparently the view of Rav Eliashiv and other contemporary gedolim. Beis din is not viewed as capable of protecting against this type of aggression. Beis din is not needed but a rav should be consulted for objectivity and to prevent the world being hefker. It is not clear what their attitude would be if the child initiated the sexual activity. I think that the majority would hold that the adult is still responsible for the resulting activity - not the child. For example the Rambam holds that a child is responsible for sexual activity and thus a seduced child is guilty while the majority view is that a child is not considered liable and all sexual activity of a child with an adult is considered rape.

3) It is permitted to call the police as protection  -  even against serious verbal harassment - if there are at least 3 victims and an individual can call the police for financial or physical harm. Moser is understood as being only if it is a willful act to hurt another. But if you call the police solely to protect yourself or others - it is not considered moser. No beis din is need since it is simply an act of self preservation. A rav should be consulted - but there is fact is no aveira if he isn't. This is the Chasam Sofer (based on Gittin 7a) and others. Clearly a father or anyone else can call the police to protect a child from any sexual activity.

How Lakewood prevents abuse from being reported

Jewish Week 12/06/11. “Most victims of abuse and parents in Lakewood are afraid to speak up because [they fear being threatened by rabbis],” Debbie Rudin, a victim of childhood sexual abuse who now lives in Lakewood, told The Jewish Week.

“There are many Jewish communities that are controlled by the rabbonim [rabbis] of their towns that set certain standards, whether in regards to businesses, giving kosher supervision or allowing schools to open,” said Harold (Hershel) Hershkowitz, a Lakewood businessman who ran (and lost) for the Lakewood Township Committee on an anti-cronyism platform against the BMG-backed candidate. “But all of these are controlled in an open manner well understood by all that live there,” he said. “Lakewood, on the other hand, has a cabal that controls most Jewish publications, websites and of course the political arena, in order to exert full influence whenever it is necessary in order to keep their position of influence.”[...]

Indeed, the court testimony described above affords a rare public glimpse into what New Jersey Superior Court Judge Francis R. Hodgson characterized as Lakewood’s “parallel justice system.”

The testimony itself comes from the only sexual abuse case in memory from the Lakewood haredi community to be prosecuted — something that came about because a family flouted, at great personal cost, communal norms and pressed charges against an alleged child molester, Yosef Kolko, in 2009.[...]

In addition to information directly relevant to the Kolko case, testimony from the hearings indicates that there have been other abuse allegations apparently deemed credible by rabbis, but that nonetheless went unreported to the police.

In testimony in New Jersey Superior Court given in May of this year, Lakewood rabbi and activist Micky Rottenberg alludes to such a case, which The Jewish Week has learned involved allegations against the husband of a woman who ran a local children’s playgroup. The beit din found the allegations to be credible and publicized them, effectively shutting down the playgroup. However, the authorities were never notified and the accused remains in the community today.

In his testimony, Rabbi Rottenberg also sheds light on the beit din’s inner workings.

According to him, “[The Secretary] of the beis din [would contact] the victims … [and the] alleged perpetrator, discuss with them … beg them to do certain things. And if they don’t do it, [the secretary would say] ‘I’m going to report [to the beit din] that you don’t listen to us, and then we are going to … Take away your job. Send away your kids from schools.’ Whatever measures they would feel they have power to be able for the person to submit and accept the verdict of the beis din.”

Rabbi Rottenberg also testified that he felt the beit din favored the accusers and was in fact involved in disbanding it at the behest of Rabbi Malkiel Kotler for this reason. Rabbi Kotler, through his brother, denied making any such request. [...]

Tzedaka During Davening by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt   They come from beyond the borough and enter into local shuls to collect Tzedakah.  Are there halachic guidelines and protocols as to when they can collect during Davening and when they cannot?  Is it permitted during Psukei D’Zimra or chazaras HaShatz?  Is it forbidden or permitted to give during these times?  The issue is the matter of much shul conversation debate.  So, at the very least, an article on the topic could lessen the amount of talking in shul.

We are working, of course, with the assumption that if one sees a real Ani, one is obligated to give him money.  This is the clear implication and understanding of the words of the author of the Shulchan Aruch (247:1).  It is also how most of the Achronim understand the Mechaber too.

Tzedakah is a full-fledged obligation to be supporting the poor – it is not optional.  One does not have to give an entire dollar, nor, according to many Poskim must one give to people that could theoretically be working.  One could, however, prepare quarters to give.  It should also be noted that if one does not have funds to give, this is not considered an Ones – it is a full-fledged exemption.

One issue, of course, that comes to mind is the idea of Osaik baMitzvah patur min haMitzvah – one who is involved in a Mitzvah is exempt from another Mitzvah.  The RaN (Sukkah 25a) rules that this principle is applicable even if it is possible to fulfill both Mitzvos with the one caveat that if it must affect the quality of the first Mitzvah being performed.  Otherwise, one should do both Mitzvos.

So are we truly capable of multi-tasking our giving tzedaka along with the davening that we were originally involved in?  The short answer would seem to be “no, we cannot effectively multi-task without compromising the first Mitzvah.”  All this is assuming that we are really concentrating on the Tefillah.  If we are not anyway, then it seems that the RaN’s caveat is irrelevant.   The consequences of this rationale are that if someone isn’t paying attention to the davening – then he could be approached and he would not be exempt.  If someone is paying attention then he is exempt. [...]

Grooming students for abuse at Horace Mann

New Yorker   When I was in high school, at Horace Mann, in the Bronx, in the nineteen-seventies, everyone took pride in the brilliant eccentricity of our teachers. There was an English teacher who slipped precepts from the Tao Te Ching into his classes on the Bible and occasionally urged us to subvert standardized tests by answering every question with the word “five.” There was a much loved language teacher who would pelt distracted students with a SuperBall. There was a history instructor who, in a lecture on how the difficulty of delivering mail in the early days of the republic helped shape Federalist ideas, would drop his trousers to reveal patterned boxer shorts.[...]

One group of boys stood apart; they insisted on wearing jackets and ties and shades, and they stuck to themselves, reciting poetry and often sneering at the rest of us. A few of them shaved their heads. We called them Bermanites, after their intellectual and sartorial model, an English teacher named Robert Berman: a small, thin, unsmiling man who papered over the windows of his classroom door so that no one could peek through.[...]

Berman could be mercilessly critical. He called boys “fools” and “peons” and scoffed at their vulgar interests in pop culture, girls, and material things. He was a fastidious reader of students’ work and a tough, sometimes capricious grader. He noted carefully who accepted his authority and who resisted. After he overheard one boy imitating him in the hallway, he covered the boy’s next paper with lacerating comments: “You used to be better.” On the rare occasion when a student earned his praise, he would be celebrated. Now and then, Berman would ask for a copy of a particularly well-wrought paper, which the boys took as the highest compliment; they called it “hitting the wow.” 

One afternoon in 1969, Berman announced that a tenth grader named Stephen Fife had written a paper that indicated he could be the next Dickens. Soon afterward, Berman asked Fife to see him after class. This was the ultimate invitation: personal attention from the master, who would go over a student’s writing line by line, inquire about problems with his parents, and perhaps tutor him privately in art history or Russian.[...]

Rishumei Aharon: New Rulings From Rav Moshe Feinstein Zt”l

5tjt by Rabbi Yair Hoffman   As a follow up to the previous reviews of both the Mesoras Moshe as well as volume nine of the Igros Moshe, a number of people (laymen, Poskim, and Rabbis) requested more information on the book entitled “Rishumei Aharon” mentioned in a previous review.  The Rishumei Aharon (Vol. I 92 pages and Vol. II 45 pages, beautifully arranged and typeset by Machon Daas Z’keinim in Lakewood, NJ) was written by Rav Aharon Felder, a Talmid Muvhak of Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l.

Rav Felder is the Rav of Congregation Bnai Israel in Philadelphia, and is the son of Rabbi Gedaliah Felder z”l from Toronto, a renowned Posek as well.   A responsa to Rav Aharon Felder, the author, appears in Igros Moshe YD Vol. IV #43.

Rav Felder spent 14 years with Rav Moshe Feinstein and spent much time with him during those years.   Rav Felder is a renowned expert in the laws of Gittin, and is often consulted upon in matters relating to Gittin such as the spelling of specific English names.  Aside from the rulings and halachic opinions found in the Sefer, there are some remarkable vignettes of Rav Feinstein zt”l – that are not found elsewhere.

Rav Felder is also known for his “tells-it-like-it-is” style (perhaps because of his Galicianisher upbringing), which makes both volumes very interesting reads.  There are also rulings that, in this author’s opinion are rather surprising.

VIGNETTES OF RAV MOSHE

The first volume begins with a number of vignettes of Rabbi Felder’s Rebbe.  Rav Felder relates that Rav Moshe told him once that while in Luban, he was married on a Friday afternoon. His own father was his Mesader Kiddushin – not just for him but for a few other couples as well.  Their sole Sheva Brachos was on Shabbos and no further Sheva Brachos, unlike the general custom prevalent today. [...]

Rabbi Berkowitz - advances in dealing with abuse in Chassidic community

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Refusing to apologize for errors - Short term benefits

Scientific American    [...] most apologies exact some toll on the offender, as it can be embarrassing to admit a mistake publicly or even to just one other person. And, as with Deen’s apology, the offender often suffers additional penalties as a result of the admission of guilt. Confession of a wrongdoing can damage a relationship, lead to loss of status or power, or even result in the termination of employment. These common costs may help explain the seemingly widespread reluctance to say, “I’m sorry.”  From politicians and professional athletes to friends and co-workers, denial of culpability is far too familiar.

Beyond avoiding the embarrassment and potential penalty associated with admitting a wrongdoing, new research by Tyler Okimoto and colleagues in Australia suggests that there are deeper internal motives for our refusal to apologize. Okimoto's research shows that those who refuse to express remorse maintain a greater sense of control and feel better about themselves than those who take no action after making a mistake.

Such findings may seem paradoxical, given the common wisdom that we should take responsibility for our actions and say we are sorry if we do harm. Indeed, research confirms the benefits of apologies for both victims and offenders. For victims, an apology serves as a form of moral restitution. When you apologize to a person you have offended, you convey a sense of power to that person. The victim can accept or reject the apology, and can extend or withhold forgiveness. As a result, the balance of power shifts from the offender to the offended.  Victims may assume a position of superiority when they take the moral high ground and offer mercy to the guilty party, or they may gain a sense of power over the transgressor by denying pardon. Thus for victims, the culprit's admission of guilt and contrition can be restorative.

There are upsides to apologies for the offenders too. By acknowledging personal mistakes and conveying remorse, offenders may diffuse anger and decrease the impending punishment or penalty, enhance their image in the eyes of the victim and other people, regain acceptance in a social group, or restore personal relationships. They may even reduce their own sense of guilt.

Given that apologies offer a relatively simple way to mend relations and heal wounds for victims and offenders, why do people refuse to apologize? Beyond escaping punishment, there may be some psychological benefits to standing one's ground. For example, adopting a self-righteous stance may feed one's need for power. If the act of apologizing restores power to the victim, it may also simultaneously diminish the power of the transgressor. Thus actively denying any wrongdoing may allow the offender to retain the upper hand . If one cannot deny an error entirely, minimizing the error may be the next best thing.  Perhaps one reason that many felt Deen’s apology rang hollow was that she attempted to mitigate the severity of her infraction by stating that she only made the racial slur once, with a gun pointed at her head. [...]

Correcting the shame of the distribution of the disgraceful letter of 9 rabbis against Rav "S" at the Lakewood asifa of Lev L'Achim

 On Wednesday July 3 at 9:20 , there will be a major asifa in Lakewood of Lev L'Achim. This important event will be addressed by Rav Ezriel Auerbach shlita. Despite all the holy words that will surely be spoken - it is highly unlikely that what is truly required to be spoken about will be addressed. At the previous asifa in 2010 a document of shame and degradation was distributed that condemned one of Lakewood's most distinguished talmidei chachomim for being a moser - for reporting the abuse of his son to the police. It is embarrassing enough that the 9  well known rabbis signed this disgusting document against a father whose concern was for the welfare of Lakewood's children. However these expert rabbis apparently also didn't bothering checking out the fact that the father had in fact received a letter from Rav Sternbuch telling him that he was required to report the abuse. They were apparently ignorant of the elementary fact that even without receiving a psak from Rav Sternbuch and other gedolim the father not only had the right to report a child abuser but was obligated according to the views of the gedolei hador including Rav Eliashiv, Rav Wosner, the Tzitz Eliezer and Rav Moshe Halberstam.  Their ignorance of the halachos dealing with child abuse - as clearly described in Yeshurun volume 15 -  is truly shameful and embarrassing.

To compound their shameful ignorance - they have so far failed to apologize to the talmid chachom that they publicly attacked in their letter. 

It would be appropriate that the repentance letter of Reb Dovid Epstein be distributed at this asifa . Apology letter of Reb Dovid Epstein

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

Elul, 5770 [August, 2010]

PROCLAMATION

It is clear that no one in the world has the authority to establish guilt on anyone without both [the accuser and accused] coming to an accepted bais din for the matter to be heard amongst "brothers." If one does this [establishes guilt without a determination of a bais din] even if he is "as tall as a cedar tree" [a great scholar] he has made an absolute error. And more so he [the accuser] may not take any damaging action against the accused and even more so may not bring any accusation to the secular authorities. Such actions [reporting made to the secular authorities] are elucidated in [Shulchan Aruch - Jewish code of law compiled in the 161h century] Choshen Mishpat chapter 388 [which discusses the penalties for "mesira" reporting to the secular authorities]. And there can be no [Jewish law] lawful and righteous means [to report to the secular authorities] other than to first show that one has in their possession a clear detailed ruling in writing from an expert bais din that includes specifics of the matter. And if one violates this ruling and commits the deed of reporting to the secular authorities it is incumbent upon him to rectify this misdeed and do everything possible to clear the accused of any trace of allegations with the secular authorities. And it does not need to be said that it is prohibited to assist and participate with them [the secular authorities] in their efforts to persecute a Jew.

Avrohom Spitzer Dayan - Skver

Tzvi Yosef Burstien - Rosh Yeshiva of Mesivta of Lakewood

Eliyahu Levine - Rosh Kolle of Kolle Choshen Mishpat

Shlomo Gisinger - Rabbi of Cong Zichron Yaakov

Chaim Ginsberg - Rosh Chabura - Beth Med rash Gevoha

Shmuel Mayer Katz- Dayan - Beth Med rash Gevoha

Yosef ZimbaI - Rabbi - Congregation Westgate

Simcha Bunim Cohen - Rabbi - Congregation Ateres Yeshaya

Meir Reuvein Berkowitz - Rabbi - Congregation Whispering Pines Sefard

A Sad Day - Rabbi Dr. Norman Lamm retires after a distinguished career at Y.U. - and apologizes for his handling of sex abuse allegations

YU In accord with an agreement reached 3 years ago, Rabbi Lamm's contract expired on June 30th and he announced his retirement  as Chancellor and Rosh Yeshiva of Y.U. He has had an association with Y.U. for over 60 years as a student, faculty member, rosh yeshiva, president and chancellor. In the 6 page retirement letter he devoted four paragraphs to an apology for  his inadequate handling of sex abuse charges in the 1980's.

In the Aleinu, mishtachavim is followed by modim, modim as in thanks. But there is another meaning as well, one that holds the key to real leadership and one upon which I reflect at this important transition in my personal and professional life. Jacob’s blessing to his son Judah, Yehudah, attah yodukha achekha (Gen. 49:8) literally means “Judah, your brothers will recognize you (as their leader).” However, the word yodukha, they will recognize you, is etymologically related to the word vidui, confession and therefore teaches us that only those who can, like Judah, confess, are those who can be acknowledged as real leaders.

And it is to this I turn as I contemplate my response to allegations of abuse in the Yeshiva community. At the time that inappropriate actions by individuals at Yeshiva were brought to my attention, I acted in a way that I thought was correct, but which now seems ill conceived. I understand better today than I did then that sometimes, when you think you are doing good, your actions do not measure up. You think you are helping, but you are not. You submit to momentary compassion in according individuals the benefit of the doubt by not fully recognizing what is before you, and in the process you lose the Promised Land. I recognize now that when we make decisions we risk, however inadvertently, the tragedy of receiving that calamitous report: tarof toraf Yosef, “Joseph is devoured,” all our work is in vain, all we have put into our children has the risk of being undone because of a few well intentioned, but incorrect moves. And when that happens—one must do teshuvah. So, I too must do teshuvah.

True character requires of me the courage to admit that, despite my best intentions then, I now recognize that I was wrong. I am not perfect; none of us is perfect. Each of us has failed, in one way or another, in greater or lesser measure, to live by the highest standards and ideals of our tradition — ethically, morally, halakhically. We must never be so committed to justifying our past that we thereby threaten to destroy our future. It is not an easy task. On the contrary, it is one of the greatest trials of all, for it means sacrificing our very egos, our reputations, even our identities. But we can and must do it. I must do it, and having done so, contribute to the creation of a future that is safer for innocents, and more ethically and halakhically correct.

Biblical Judah was big enough to admit that he was small. He confesses a mistake. He can experience guilt and confront it creatively. After the incident with Tamar, he does not offer any tortured rationalizations to vindicate himself. He says simply and forthrightly: tzadkah mimmeni (Gen. 38:26), she was right and I was wrong. And with that statement Judah is transformed into a self-critical man of moral courage. He concedes guilt. He knows that he is guilty with regard to Joseph, and together with his brothers he says aval ashemim anachnu, “indeed, we are guilty.” Pushed to the limits of the endurance of his conscience, he rises to a new stature and achieves a moral greatness that is irrefrangible and pellucid.

This is what I am modeh as I reflect on my tenure. Tzadkah mimmeni. I hope that those who came forth and others who put their trust in me will feel that faith vindicated and justified.  Modeh ani.

One might think it appropriate to mark the formal end of a career in avodat ha-kodesh with the recitation of Havdalah, the blessing which marks the end of the sacred period of holy days. Yet my whole career in avodat ha-kodeh has been one of havdalah.

Prohibitions Before Washing Negel Vasser – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt     There are three things that should not be done before one washes Negel Vasser in the morning.

1. One should not touch the open areas of the face before washing Negel Vasser on the  hands:  These are the mouth, the nose, the ears and the eyes.  This is based upon the Gemorah in Shabbos (108b) which indicates that there is a danger to these orifices on account of the Ruach Rah that exists on the hands before it is washed off.  The Gemorah gives a warning to other body parts as well, but Rashi explains that these areas do not refer to Negel Vasser but to other times.   There is a debate as to whether the outer sections maybe touched, such as the lips, outer nose, outer ear, and eye lids.  It is best to be stringent according to the Mishna Brurah (MB 4:12). [...]

Rabbi Adlerstein calls for less heated rhetoric and a greater understanding of the other side

Cross Currents   [...]  But is it fair to be conclusory about Piron? Should we not ask what kind of cultural ethos he wants to see. Does he want to cut of the peyos of residents of Meah Shearim? Does he want to lower the charedi birthrate so they won’t take over? Or does he want to see charedi soldiers in Tzahal (and DL ones, and secular ones) met with a smile and appreciation? Much more importantly – does it matter so much what Piron (a BT, rav and a ram!) wants? What kind of change is the voting public looking for? Is it fair to assume that they want what Piron wants? Should we not at least ask the question? No, I don’t think Rabbi Grylak is paranoid, but I think he is helping to ease his readership down the path of maximizing rejection of the other side, while paying minimum attention to their legitimate concerns and needs. [Aside: Last week, Hamodia put together an evening of messages on the topic by important speakers around the world. They did stay close to the predictable message, with one important exception. Rabbi Aharon Lopiansky of Silver Spring (a colleague on the editorial board of Klal Perspectives) spoke, among other things of the need to understand what the other sides is saying. He pointed to an Akeidah (Kedoshim #65) who says that women who truly care about their appearance use mirrors that maximize, rather than minimize, their blemishes. That way, they can better attend to them cosmetically. Listening to our critics, with their inflated language, helps us focus on our own faults. You can listen to his presentation by calling  718-650-6050  and selecting option 6.]

Rabbi Grylak asks in large type, “Does a demand for forced social change fit in with the concept of democracy as you know it in the United States?” Unfortunately, he picked the wrong week to ask this question. Rabbi Grylak, meet Justice Kennedy, who led the US Supreme Court in a massive exercise in social engineering last week. Rabbi Grylak also asks, “From a democratic point of view, do you see a possibility for the US government to dictate the nature of education in keeping with the American ethos? Can they do this in Satmar, in Lakewood?” Maybe it is time for another US visit, Rabbi Grylak. Indeed, that is the law of the land. Some may try to operate in violation of the laws mandating general studies instruction (even for home schoolers!), but the laws in fact exist. They uphold the need of a democratic society to assure that children are given both a chance at vocational success as well as share some information about the United States that is meant to bring about some social cohesion.

Like Yair Lapid, what I say I would like to see is not the same as what I would settle for as first steps along the way. Rabbi Grylak’s concession that over-the-top rhetoric by any camp leads to over-the-top reaction by the opposing camp is a good place to start, and I am happy to have been the shliach to make it happen.

And, to illustrate the complexity and nuance of life, I will recall for readers the time some years ago that I joined an Aguda mission to Israel. We spent some time in Knesset; I was chosen to deliver a message from the group at a meeting with MK Chaim Ramon. My piece de resistance was a beautiful appreciation of the role of the beis medrash and learning as the source of strength of the Nation. It was delivered with the apparent approval of the other participants. It was authored by Chaim Nachman Bialik.

Daniel Moaz - Found guilty of killing parents

Haaretz    A man was found guilty on Monday of brutally stabbing and killing his parents at their Jerusalem home, and was sentenced to two consecutive life terms. 

The Jerusalem District Court convicted Daniel Maoz on all the charges brought against him, including two counts of murder and destruction of evidence.  [...]

The judges compared the events that unfolded to "a horror film" as they noted that Maoz demonstrated no remorse for his actions. 

"At the very least, the defendant should have felt the requisite pain, guilt and remorse. Alas, the defendant did not regret his actions, and tried to slander his twin brother – a claim that was dismissed out of hand."[...]

Rav Yitzchok Scheiner - Yesh Atid and Bayit Yehudi are a “reform movement” that want to destroy Charedi Judaism

Guest post by RaP

   Rav Yitzchok Scheiner Delivers a Tough Message

Negel Vasser – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt    When we wake up in the morning we wash our hands from a vessel in a specific manner: three times on each hand, switching off each time.This is called “Negel Vasser.”  There are two customs as to when the blessing on Neggel Vasser is recited.  The prevalent custom is to recite the bracha immediately (MB 6:9), but some recite it together with the morning Brachos in Shacharis. 

Generally speaking, we recite Brachos before we do the actual Mitzvah.  Why is it different for Negel Vasser?  The answer is that when our hands are impure, we shouldn’t recite a bracha!  So here, Chazal enacted the bracha afterward.

What is the reason that we wash our hands in the morning?  This is actually a four way debate between the Rosh, the Rashba, the Orchos Chaim (Rav Aharon of Narbonne), and the Zohar.  The Rosh (Responsa #61) writes that the sages enacted this obligation because our hands invariably touch parts of the body during the night that should be covered, and we must wash our hands before praying.

The Rashba (Responsa 1:191) writes that we are renewed every morning based upon the Pasuk in Eichah (3:23).  Therefore, the sages enacted that we must wash our hands from a vessel just as the Kohanim wash their hands from the Kior (a vessel) in the Bais HaMikdash.

The Orchos Chaim (cited in the Drisha in OC Siman 4) writes that during the nighttime an impure spirit rests upon the hands and does not leave until the hands are washed three times. The Shla (Chulin, Derech Chaim) explains that there are three separate impure forces.  Therefore, three washings are necessary to remove them.

The Zohar (Parshas VaYaishev 184) states that when the Neshama leaves it leaves a spirit of Tumah, impurity in the body.  When the soul re-enters, the impurity travels to the limbs.  Water can remove the impurity from the hands.    Why the limbs?  The Shla explains that the limbs correspond to the outer extensions of the universe, where the powers of impurity are strongest.

How does the Shulchan Aruch rule?  He rules that a bracha is only recited when both the Rosh’s reason and the Rashba’s reasons apply.  The other reasons may be reasons to wash one’s hands, but as far as the sages enactment goes, the Rosh and the Rashba are the main reasons. [...]

My Guidelines for Reporting Abuse Cases

I was recently asked in a Face Book discussion about the guidelines I use for reporting abuse cases. The issue was whether a particularly horrific case involving allegations of incest, gang rape and torture should be published. I decided not to publish it at present. I was asked why I view this case differently than the Weberman and Kolko cases which also involved allegations but which I have extensive reporting? I thought it might be useful to publish here my response to the question.

I don't automatically put a news item on my blog just because it involves accusations of abuse - it involves a judgment as to the costs vs benefits. In the case of Kolko and Weberman - I had additional reports from those I consider reliable that the charges were valid and more important that significant pressure was being applied to have the charges dropped. Therefore there was a major need to counterbalance the community pressure in these cases. A case that is widely covered in the secular press is generally also reported to avoid the impression of cover up. A situation where there are multiple victims is also reported in order to encourage reporting to the police. In situations where the perpetrator has escaped - I generally report it so hopefully he will get caught. Cases that illustrate that the abuser is often a respected or beloved individual is also reported in order to break down the stereotype that a crazy stranger is the abuser. In the present case - there was a single accuser, no indication that there was any evidence or that she was viewed as trustworthy. More important the details reported were especially horrific. I could not find other news sources that were reporting it. I could not think of an obvious benefit to publishing this anonymous case and the negative consequences of publicizing it are obvious. I often - though not always - publicize convictions so that people understand that abuse is not a rare event. There is also the issue of balance - I don't want to simply report all the negative items about our community - people stop reading the items or assume that is all that is going on in the world. in fact I will also publicize related articles from outside our community if it helps provide a context for abuse - such as the Penn State scandal or the Catholic Church

Beth Alexander fights an insensitive Austrian justice system to regain her twin boys

Vienna Review   by Nina Cranen and Franziska Zoidl    

 Law without Justice

As in most countries in the West, Austrian family law is meant to serve the best interests of the children. But what if Justitia errs? [....]

Family law has a long tradition in Europe, either as Catholic countries or as Protestant.” However, that should not have mattered here, as both parents are observant Jews, a tradition in which mothers are held in very high regard. “Respect for motherhood is deeply rooted in Jewish culture,” confirmed the Viennese rabbi. Jewish identity itself is, in fact, matrilineal, i.e., being passed on through the mother. A child born of a Jewish father and Christian mother, for example, is not considered a Jew.

However, for Judge emeritus Lilian Hofmeister, Alexander’s case comes as no surprise in the Austrian legal system: “This is particularly true in custody wars over sons,” Judge Hofmeister said. “There seems to be a new ‘rule of thumb’, which states: ‘Sons belong to their fathers’,” she said. “In the course of my pro bono work, I have come across cases that I wouldn’t have thought possible from my understanding of the law,” she added. While she was not familiar with all the details of this case, she said that especially with parents raising their children religiously, courts often prefer the fathers to the mothers. “I often get the impression that fathers use women as baby machines,” Dr. Hofmeister said, “As soon as the baby is born, they want to get rid of the mother(…), with foreigners, it is even easier.” As a social critic and feminist, she sees the situation in Austria as “a ‘war against women as mothers’, something not yet being examined by the courts.”

As the twins were born in Austria, Alexander’s case is governed by Austrian law: After a 1.5-year custody battle, Judge Susanne Göttlicher granted full and immediate custody to her husband, basing her decision on one psychological report. In the report, a court-appointed psychologist deemed her unfit to parenting: “The mother has limited parenting abilities (…) she inadequately interacts and bonds with her children.” For Alexander, the report has been fabricated – a procedure that has just caused a scandal in Salzburg, where a courtappointed psychologist is believed to have written 13 reports for courts predominantly in custody wars, using pre-fabricated textual elements and having manipulated the psychological tests.

To prove the report wrong, Alexander had herself re-assessed privately, leading to a second court-commissioned evaluation, by Dr. Werner Leixnering. Both reports contradicted the initial report and stated that she was perfectly sane and a good mother. To date, Judge Göttlicher has declined to accept these reports in evidence. Claiming bias, Alexander filed for a replacement of the judge in January, which has put the case on hold for nearly six months. [...]

However, just before press time, a decision was handed denying Alexander’s request for a change of venue, stating that “a transfer of jurisdiction to the Bezirksgericht Josefstadt is not in the interest of the children at the moment.” But with every day that passes, the legal argument grows that the children are now “used to their father”, as the psychiatrist Wörgötter knows from her 15-year experience as a court-appointed expert. [...]

Modeh Ani – An Overview by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5tjt    [...] The Mishna Brurah quotes it and writes, “When we arise in the morning we say, ‘Modeh Ani lefanecha, melech chai v’kayam, shehechezarta bi nishmasi b’chemla, rabah emunasecha.’ This means, ‘Before You, I thank you, O’ living and everlasting King, that You have returned my soul to me in mercy.. How great is your faithfulness!’

Why do we say this? The reason is that our bodies are not just hydro-carbon based cells, proteins, water and minerals.  We are also imbued with a Neshama, a soul, – called in Sefer Iyov a “Chailek Elokah Mimaal. – A Divine portion from Above.”  When we sleep at night, our Neshamos leave our physical bodies and arise to Heaven.  Hashem in His Chemla – kindness, returns our Neshama to us when we wake up in the morning.  The Modeh Ani is a way of expressing gratitude which makes us into better people, but it is also more than this.  There is an element of yearning for Geulah in it too.

The last words, “Great is your faithfulness is based upon a verse in Aicha (3:23), “They are new every morning, great is Your faithfulness.”  The Psikta Zutrasa explains that since each and every morning You renew our souls, we know that in the future You will redeem us as well.

The words “that You have returned my soul to me” come from the Avudraham, a Spanish Rishon, in his Hilchos Krias Shma.  Yet, he did not advocate this formula as something to recite each morning upon awakening.  It seems that the author of the Seder HaYom combined these elements together in conceiving of the Modeh Ani. [...]

5TJT Op-Ed on Supreme Court Ruling Repealing Doma

Five Towns Jewish Times    We are deeply saddened by the trajectory of this week’s Supreme Court ruling concerning the Defense of Marriage Act.

The Founders of this great nation embraced the idea of building a moral and virtuous society in this country in a manner that would enable all peoples to be able to fulfill both their inalienable rights as well as their inalienable duties.

These inalienable rights and duties are part of what can be called Natural Law.  From Moses to Cicero, to Washington, Jefferson, andFranklin, Natural Law has always defined the distinction between that which is just and that which is unjust, between right and wrong.  The idea of “Justice at Nuremberg” was characterized by Natural Law, since according to Nazi German law – the murder of Jews, gypsies, and certain other groups was entirely legal.  No society or government should be able to legislate laws or rules that undermine these Natural Laws. Just as a government is proscribed from legalizing murder and theft, so too may it not undermine other Natural Laws.

Marriage has been defined by the very fabrics of history, universal cultural norms, and Natural Law as being between man and woman.  Marriage combines in a union of life, love, and fidelity two people, capable of fathering and mothering offspring. It is more than mere kinship or friendship, it is a social and legal bond designed by Natural Law to procreate and continue the existence of mankind.  Undermining an institution that has been designed by history and Natural Law to vouchsafe the future of mankind can be compared to unleashing chemical and nuclear hazards that can also undermine mankind’s future.  Same gender marriages undermine Natural Law.

Furthermore, once we begin to redefine the basic integrity of the family structure in this nation, state, or city, we begin to fall down a slippery slope.  Such a move will give rise to a movement to legalize the right to have multiple wives.  It will give legitimacy to those who wish to allow marriages to one’s sister, daughter, son, or to two sisters simultaneously.  It will even give legitimacy to those who wish to enter the bonds of matrimony with favorite pets and animals. 

Modern social science and scientific inquiry has demonstrated the need of both a mother and a father to help foster the normal psycho-social development of children.  While there are times when this is not possible, government should make every effort to improve the ideal environment in which children should be raised.  Redefining marriage will lead to a disaster similar to that which Romania experienced in its orphan crisis in the late sixties and early seventies.  The Romanian orphan crisis led to a situation where thousands of children were raised outside the structure of families as envisioned by Natural Law.  The results were catastrophic and dysfunctional behaviors.  There will always be exceptions, but it is clearly in the state’s interest to ensure that future children be given the best chances of success possible.  Redefining marriages against the state interest in order to allow some members of society to co-opt a term is wrong. [...]