The Rebellion of Chief Rabbi Sacks by Rabbi Cardozo

Cardozo Academy  Let it be said. Jonathan Sacks has been a rebellious chief rabbi. Now that he is stepping down, we had better keep an eye on him and hope he will become even more of an insurgent.

Over the years, most of us rabbis have become irrelevant on a global level. But isn’t that what we craved? Yes, we wanted to be spiritual leaders and teachers of our communities, serve our congregants, and become heads of yeshivot. Some of us did very well. But we shunned the idea of going beyond this noble task and taking on the world. We preferred to stay put, teaching conventional Judaism, creating our own comfort zone where our beliefs would not be challenged; where we wouldn’t get upset or begin having doubts and experiencing religious crisis. We wanted to ensure that Tradition would survive and be passed on to future generations. Once we succeeded in achieving that goal, we indulged ourselves in self-satisfaction, content with our own arguments, divrei Torah and Talmud classes. This was our Judaism.

The fact that outside our little world there was religious and moral turmoil was not our business. That religious faith was challenged as never before did not bother us. It was for the goyim to deal with. We buried our heads in the sand and lived happily ever after.

By doing so, though, we robbed the rabbinate of one of its most powerful tasks: to challenge, to disturb, to rebel and to send a strong, passionate message that is not always to our liking. After all, Judaism “is not a sustained, comfortable state of consciousness, but rather a painful, hard-worn and impermanent conviction—a breathing spell in the midst of an ongoing conflict” (*). Great Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once observed that religion has to function like a thunderstorm, but that over the years it invented sundry lightening-conductors and lost its purpose. The same is true about the rabbinate. It has become a pleaser, a comforter, not a biting critic of our moral failure and our spiritual and intellectual mediocrity. It was not prepared to challenge its own institution, the Jewish tradition; it wouldn’t dare to take a fresh look at its holy texts, at Halacha, and at the spiritual conditions and needs of its own people. [...]

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport explains his views on the Menachem Levy case

Tzedek   Plan to provide my thoughts on the subject next week

See previous post

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport writes:

I have stated my opinion in numerous public forums that paedophiles, as all criminals who constitute a threat to society, should be incarcerated in jail, if necessary – for life, the primary reason being: to protect their potential victims from abuse. I have likewise stated unequivocally that victims and those with knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse in the Jewish community must report such cases to the legal authorities in order to ensure that the victims are fully supported, the criminals are penalized and society is protected. I decry those people who exhibit a grotesque lack of sympathy or attempt to belittle the trauma suffered by victims, or, worse still, perversely portray the predators (and their active or passive accomplices) as the victims and cruelly penalise and ostracise victims and their families. I support institutions that are designed to help victims. I myself have been instrumental in setting up support apparatus for victims and have asserted myself to help them in every possible way. Now to the issue at hand:

The case of Mr. Levy and Ms. Goldsobel (both of whom had previously come to me for counseling) went before a Crown Court jury on two occasions. Ultimately verdicts of not guilty on all rape charges and any other charges relating to post-16 activity were entered on the court record. The court was however satisfied that sexual conduct had started before Goldsobel was 16 and that it followed as a matter of law that she could not have consented to that activity, regardless of whether she had been a willing partner. Yet, when sentencing Levy, the judge stated explicitly that he does not constitute a threat to society.

From a Jewish perspective, even if the woman was over the age of 16 when (as the defendant claimed) a long-term consensual sexual affair began, the relationship undoubtedly constituted a transgression of Jewish Law and arguably an ethical misdemeanor. It was in this context that I stated in court that the age of legal consent is somewhat arbitrary, because whether a girl is 15 or 16 does not mitigate the religious misdemeanor and cannot truly be determinant in deciding whether the relationship was exploitative in nature. A clandestine relationship between a 16 or 17 year old girl and a man some ten years her senior may well be exploitative and constitute a breach of trust. Therefore, even according to the defendant’s version of the events, the woman was correct in not allowing the matter to be ignored and when she consulted with me, I offered her empathetic advice, encouragement and pastoral support. It is for this reason that, even before the case came to court, I counseled the defendant on penitential and spiritual ‘rectification’ and prescribed measures for his continuous ethical and religious rehabilitation, including the provision of financial assistance for the sexually offended.[...]

Most sexual abuse in military is covered up because of fear.

NY Times   Among the scores of memories that Tiffany Lucas collected during her years as a Marine gunnery sergeant, she wears most of them with pride.  [...]

But the memory that has haunted her was her failure to push back against a commander who told her not to report a young female recruit who said she was raped by a male Marine, who, Ms. Lucas said, went on to assault two more women. 

“I was too weak to stand up to my commanding officer,” said Ms. Lucas, who served in the Marines for 11 years, including in Falluja, Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. “I really wish I had done something. If I could go back in time, I would stand up for her.” 

In Oceanside, a scrappy beach town 10 miles south of Camp Pendleton, the Marine base that sprawls for 125,000 acres along the Southern California coastline, almost everyone who has served has a story to tell about sexual misconduct in the military. Some were harassed or assaulted themselves, while others worked among men and women who were victims of abuse.

But in more than a dozen long interviews, veterans and active-duty military personnel here sounded a consistent theme: they believe commanders in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute conceal far too much out of fear that the cases will taint their careers. 

“It’s a huge problem, mainly because of the fact it goes unreported,” said Jimmy Coats, who served in the Navy for eight years and was raped, he said, by a man he had been dating.[...]

Internet undermines faith of Mormons by providing historical facts

NY Times   In the small but cohesive Mormon community where he grew up, Hans Mattsson was a solid believer and a pillar of the church. He followed his father and grandfather into church leadership and finally became an “area authority” overseeing the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints throughout Europe.

When fellow believers in Sweden first began coming to him with information from the Internet that contradicted the church’s history and teachings, he dismissed it as “anti-Mormon propaganda,” the whisperings of Lucifer. He asked his superiors for help in responding to the members’ doubts, and when they seemed to only sidestep the questions, Mr. Mattsson began his own investigation. 

But when he discovered credible evidence that the church’s founder, Joseph Smith, was a polygamist and that the Book of Mormon and other scriptures were rife with historical anomalies, Mr. Mattsson said he felt that the foundation on which he had built his life began to crumble. 

Around the world and in the United States, where the faith was founded, the Mormon Church is grappling with a wave of doubt and disillusionment among members who encountered information on the Internet that sabotaged what they were taught about their faith, according to interviews with dozens of Mormons and those who study the church.

Calling someone Amalek - is not a code word for genocide!

Update 7 21 2013: Rav Ovadia Yosef says only politicians were meant 
There have been a lot of hystical comments (click link) regarding Rav Shalom Cohen applying the word "Amalek"   to those who wear a knitted kipa. The common thread is that it was claimed that he was  calling for genocide against the Modern Orthodox - chas v'shalom! These comments reflect a gross misunderstanding [perhaps a deliberate one] of how the term Amalek is used in Orthodox verbal warfare and a very short term memory. [update: RCA and OU condemn Rav Cohen's use of term Amalek as escalation of rhetoric - not as call for genocide]

Everybody agrees with the gemora (Berachos 28a) that there are no specific people who can be identified as Amalek for the mitzva of destroying Amalek. Once you get past that obvious and well known fact, you can understand that the term "Amalek" is used to described attitude or views that certain people have that is viewed as destructive to the Jewish people. It is the attitude or views which are being criticized - NO ONE IS CALLING FOR THE MURDER OR GENOCIDE OF THOSE LABELED AS "AMALEK". Below I cite a number of articles - including those from anti-Semitic publications which insist that use of the term "Amalek" is a code word for genocide - much as those who claim that Rav Cohen's use of the term means genocide. However it is clear that the use not only by Chareidim but by the Modern Orthodox (kipa seruga) and secular Israeli's have the same connotation of referring to ideas or attitudes - not genocide of a particular people!

2006 Rabbi Jack Riemer (Clinton's rabbi)   calls Islam Extremists - but not ordinary Muslims - Amalek. This ignited a storm whether he in fact meant that there should be genocide against all Muslims.

2006 Rav Mordechai Eliyahu calls Palestinian's Amalek

2008 http://www.meforum.org/2564/amalek - After the Mercaz HaRav massacre of 8 student's -  The killer - and by extension the Palestinians - were referred to as Amalek by Rav Shapiro. This was described by the commentator as a dangerous escalation in vocabulary.

2009 Israeli government in reference to Iran. See New York Times and responses - Bibi's advisor explained the Israeli attitude to Iran by saying "Think Amalek" - this ignited a storm as to whether Bibi was calling for genocide against the Iranians. In fact it was clear that Israeli had no such intention and that "Think Amalek" was not meant to convey that understanding. 

2011 Anti-Semitic site claims that refering to Palestinians as Amalek is a call by Orthodox Jews for genocide and concentration camps

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

The correct understanding of describing someone as Amalek is that it is referring to traits or attitudes that the person or group has that are destructive to the Jewish peole and thus must be changed - it is not referring to genocide.

Chabad article about killing Amalek - Wiping Out Amalek Today

Rav Moshe Feinstein said in Darash Moshe Remember what Amalek did to you (25:17).

    We must understand why there is still a mitzvah of remembering the act of Amalek today, even though in our present exile we would be forbidden to perform the mitzvah of eradicating him even if we knew for certain which peoples belong to Amalek.

    In my humble opinion, the point of this mitzvah is to remind us now that it is possible for any creature of flesh and blood to become as wicked as Amalek, and like him to deny Hashem's role in the world even though he sees irrefutable evidence of it, as Amalek saw at the Splitting of the Sea and in the other miracles Hashem did for us in the Wilderness. The Sages (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Seitzei 9) compared Amalek to someone who, seeing a bath of boiling water which all others were afraid to touch, nonetheless leaped into it. Despite the fact that he himself was badly scalded, he cooled the bath water to a degree where others could then also take the plunge of bathing in it. Similarly, all the miracles Hashem had done for the Jews did not deter Amalek from attacking them and making it possible for others also to want to wage war against them.

     The lesson we learn is that each of us, however great his spiritual accomplishments, must worry that he himself might be tricked into committing the most serious sins, even those that everyone considers to be most despicable. Just as Amalek fell so low, we must also be afraid that any of us can fall equally low. Not only must each of us distrust his ability to persist in the good practices he has established for himself, he must also be continually on his guard for even the most serious sins, such as theft, murder, adultery, and the like.

Menachem Levy given 3 year jail term for abusing teenager

 Update: July 21 2013 Rabbi Rapoport explains his views

The following represents a very difficult case from the point of halacha. On the one hand it is a seduction of a typically sheltered Orthodox girl from the ages of 14 to 21 - by a married family friend who is 14 years older. She clearly was an adult according to halacha. On the other hand it is obvious that someone who doesn't know what sex is - can hardly be accountable for what happened. Also problematic is that Rabbi Rappaport testified that the married man was the “embodiment of repentance”, for what he did over a period of years. This is truly bizarre since the man pleaded not guilty and is appealing the conviction. Does the seducer deserve 3 years in jail?

See older J.C. article for background information on this case

 For perspective on general issue: Would you react differently if the seducer was an Arab?
Jonathan Rosenblum: Jewish teenagers seduced by Arabs

The problem is whether there is a concept of statutory rape for teenagers in halacha? Statutory rape assumes that a party below a certain age can not consent. Penalties vary widely between states and are not universally regarded as desirable even in secular society.

CNN

In short, the crime of statutory rape may have originated from repressive and misogynist conceptions of sexuality. Nonetheless, it has (and may always have had) redeeming characteristics, even from an enlightened perspective that takes into account the realities of prosecuting rape and of women's equality. It makes it easier, for example, to prosecute and thus to deter real rapists who count on jury skepticism about acquaintance rape allegations.
Still, reducing burdens of proof relies a great deal on trust – in victims and in prosecutors – that the omitted element will truly be present when cases come to trial. If and when that trust is misplaced, as may or may not have happened to Marcus Dwayne Dixon, a grave injustice can result.

CGA

Most states do not refer specifically to statutory rape; instead they use designations such as sexual assault and sexual abuse to identify prohibited activity. Regardless of the designation, these crimes are based on the premise that until a person reaches a certain age, he is legally incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse. Thus, instead of including force as a criminal element, theses crimes make it illegal for anyone to engage in sexual intercourse with anyone below a certain age, other than his spouse. The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Connecticut, setting it at age 16. The age of consent in other states ranges from ages 14 to 18. 

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

Jewish Chronicle  A young Orthodox woman who was sexually abused as a child has broken her silence to talk about the despair of being betrayed by her own community. 

After years of suffering at the hands of a long-time family friend, Yehudis Goldsobel finally reached out for help. But after reporting the crimes to the police, rabbis refused to acknowledge her suffering, her family were driven from their synagogue, and kosher shops refused to serve them.

Now, as father-of-six Menachem Mendel Levy, 41, begins a three-year jail term for two counts of sexual assault, his victim, now 27, has waived her legal right to anonymity to speak out in a bid to encourage other victims to come forward.

“Since the sentencing the reaction from the community has been really upsetting. I’ve had people closing doors, I’ve had people stop talking to me.[...]

The first trial ended in deadlock when the jury could not reach a decision, but Levy was convicted at the retrial of sexual assault, although he was acquitted of rape.

Levy argued that their sexual contact was a consenting extra-marital affair which began when she was over 16. The jury were shown a birthday card she had written to him after she had said the abuse began. [...]

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport, who until last year held the medical ethics portfolio on the Chief Rabbi’s cabinet, gave evidence as a character witness for Levy, calling him the “embodiment of repentance”, despite the fact that Levy pleaded not guilty and is appealing against both his jail sentence and his conviction.[...]

Counselor accused of abuse of 13 year old at Camp Dora Golding

Times of Israel   Originally reported in the Morning Cal

 A counselor at a Jewish summer camp for boys in Pennsylvania was taken into custody after a camper accused him of inappropriately touching him, police said.  [...]

According to an email sent to parents by the camp’s executive director, Alex Gold, the counselor was arrested within hours after the camper reported the alleged incident. He said the camp’s staff is cooperating with authorities in the investigation, and making mental health professionals and social workers available to campers, counselors and parents. [...]

Can molesters such as Mondrowitz and Lanner do teshuva & have a fresh start?

Updated I am raising an important question. Can a person, such as Mondrowitz or Lanner, who have abused numerous people over a long period of time - do teshuva and start fresh? Teshuva is a fundamental idea in Judaism. In addition once a person has done proper teshuva it is prohibited to remind him of his past misdeeds. Does this apply to every sinner and every type of sin?

This question does not present a problem for most of us concerning a person who once spoke lashon harah or stole a small amount of money when he was 14. However when we get to serious crimes that have been done to many people over an extended period of time - is teshuva possible? Let's start at the top. If Amalek or Hitler decided to repent - should they be accepted?  Does a person who lost his family in the concentration camps have to accept the sincere repentance of the Nazi soldiers who killed them? See this previous post

The issue recently was raised concerning Baruch Lanner who has allegedly been accepted by Rabbi Taubes into his home.  See Jewish Standard for more details .   Someone recently made the allegation on this blog that an alleged long time molester Richard Andron has been accepted as a baal teshuva by his rabbi who has allegedly prohibited anyone from reminding him of his past. Assuming these two individuals have in fact done teshuva - do they need to be accepted without reservation - as any other Jew? Would they get an aliyah in your shul?  Would you have them sit at the head table at any public affair? Would you allow your daughter to marry his son. Are you allowed to tell others about their past deeds?

My answer is that while on a theoretical level every sinner without exception can in fact repent and one is not allowed to remind a repentant sinner of his past - there is no halachic requirement to be stupid (in the immortal words of the Chofetz Chaim). The data on pedophiles and sexual abusers is extremely clear - they can never again be trusted.  Thus if it is a question of the welfare of your children or those of others - one does not have to be apologetic about reminding a pedophile to avoid yichud with children and to take appropriate steps needed to protect society from his possible urges.

A proof to this obvious and common sense understanding of halacha is found in a contradiction in the Mishneh Torah regarding heretic - which the Rambam himself reconciled in the way I am suggesting regarding sexual molesters. The following is from my Daas Torah page 106.

Is the Repentance of a Heretic accepted?

Contradiction in Rambam concerning repentance?

Rambam (Hilchos Teshuva 3:14): Concerning the sinners and heretics who lose their portion in the World to Come. … that is only if they die without repenting. However, if they truly repent then they obtain the World to Come since there is nothing which stands in the way of repentance. Therefore, if a person has been a heretic all his life but repents at the end then he has the World to Come…. All the wicked, the heretics and those like them, if they repent either openly or in private they are accepted…

Rambam (Hilchos Avoda Zara 2:5): … a Jewish heretic is not considered a part of the Jewish people and he is never accepted back even if repents…It is prohibited to talk with them or reply to them in any manner…

Resolution of contradiction

Rambam (Letter #615:8): …concerning the apparent contradiction [between Hilchos Teshuva and Hilchos Avoda Zara] as to whether a heretic can repent and obtain the World to Come. In fact, there is no contradiction. The statement found in Hilchos Avoda Zara that his repentance is not accepted means that he is always presumed to be a heretic. His apparent repentance is to be assumed to be from fear or to fool people. The other statement from Hilchos Teshuva that their repentance is accepted is referring to the case where they have in fact genuinely repented - in their relationship to G‑d. That is why they obtain the World to Come. It is specifically dealing with their relationship to G‑d. The first statement from Hilchos Teshuva is describing their relationship with other people - and in that case, their repentance is presumed to be false.

Rav Belsky is speaking this Shabbos Nachamu Weekend - Business as usual

A Concerned Lakewood Parent writes:

Enablers and supporters of molesters, after the fact, try to go on as if nothing happened. It's the most effective tactic they have, and the most hurtful.

Rav Belsky's notorious letter makes him, arguably, the biggest supporter of molesters in recent history. Click here for letter

 

Most people would be shocked when they hear what he wrote/did.  Everyone would be disgusted if they learn he still stubbornly holds those positions.

Attached below please find a poster that will be hanging in every Shul in the mountains this Shabbos.

This seems to be a call for action.

Potential attendees would be mortified to learn, that aside from listening to an entertaining shiur, they are being used to stab many victims in the back.

Aside from bringing it to the attention of would be attendees, there are a number of organizations that might want to steer clear. The event is being sponsored by The Beren Foundation. It's being held in The Woodridge Shul. And if they have ANY credibility left, it's being organized by the OU.

Beth Alexander Schlesinger fights for her children in the media

Jewish Week   The last two years have been a living hell for Alexander, a British woman who came to Austria in 2006 to be the doctor’s wife. She said she was promised family and security but instead found abuse, isolation and the worst fate imaginable — separation from her children.

Under a court order, Alexander, 29, is able to see her sons, now 4, only a few hours a day every Tuesday and every other Sunday. The handoff from mother to father is supervised at a state-designated contact center.

Frustrated by a court system that appears to favor the Viennese father, Alexander, a naturally demure and reserved Brit, has decided to fight back through journalism and social media. She has had nearly 100,000 hits on her blog, HelpBeth.org, and some 7,000 followers on Facebook. Her story has been told in newspapers in Austria, England, Australia and Israel. She has become something of a cause célèbre for British Jewry, which, from the office of the chief rabbi on down, has been fully supportive of Alexander. Over 100 people rallied for her in March in front of the Austrian Embassy in London. Until now her story has not been told in the American press, but it is a case that demands our attention.

“Cases like this are all too common,” said Phyllis Chesler, author of “Mothers on Trial: The Battle for Children and Custody” (Chicago Review Press). “Mothers are automatically suspected of being ‘crazy,’ of lying, of hating the father of her children, of seeking revenge, of alleging battery falsely, out of revenge.” [...]

Shameful attack on Chareidi soldier in Meah Shearim by Chareidim - Rav Edelstein condems attack

Update Matzav: Rav Edelstein said that he is shocked that a chareidi soldier was attacked in Meah Shearim and that those who committed this act have “caused great damage to the world of Torah.”
“It is incumbent upon the people of the Eidah Hachareidus to condemn the attack on the soldier,” said Rav Edelstein.


Times of Israel   The soldier assaulted in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim neighborhood on Tuesday stepped into the lion’s den of anti-establishment ultra-Orthodoxy: a street dominated by the anti-Zionist Neturei Karta sect. 

While politicians, army officials and others, many from the ultra-Orthodox community, have come out against the attack, residents of the neighborhood voiced little condemnation on Wednesday.

The soldier was attacked by dozens of ultra-Orthodox men Tuesday night while walking through the central Jerusalem neighborhood. His attackers beat him and threw oil, water and eggs at him before he managed to escape by ducking into an office, changing out of his uniform, and calling the police.

Officers and medics called to the scene were pelted with stones by residents, who called them Nazis. Four men were arrested for allegedly participating in the assault.[...]

Army officials, however, were unequivocal in their condemnations of the attack.

IDF head Benny Gantz called the incident “very severe,” and said he would deal with it using all the methods at his disposal.

“IDF soldiers carry out their mission not on behalf of shtreimels or yarmulkes or whoever doesn’t wear them, but for all Israeli citizens.”

IDF Spokesman Yoav Mordechai called on ultra-Orthodox leaders to issue an unequivocal condemnation of harassment of IDF soldiers.

“I’m trying to think what would happen if soldiers were attacked by Israeli non-Jews in the Negev or Galilee,” Mordechai said.

The attack was also met with condemnation from across the political spectrum. [...]

Minister of Economics and Trade Naftali Bennett (Jewish Home), however, cautioned against a backlash of animosity directed at the ultra-Orthodox community.

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.[...]