In search of the historical Pharoah - Rabbi Yair Hoffman

5 Towns Jewish Times     The Gemorah in Psachim (116b) informs us that, in each generation, we are obligated to view ourselves as if we actually left Mitzrayim. Indeed, in Michtav MeEliyahu, Rav Dessler writes that since time does not progress linearly, but rather travels in a carousel like circle, the 15^th of Nissan of the year 2448 is actually the very same 15^th of Nissan of our own year now.

This is one of our obligations on the night of Pesach. This being the case, that halachically we must view ourselves as actually leaving Mitzrayim, in our mind’s eye we should envision and picture the escape.

Let’s give it a try. Before us, standing at the water’s edge about to enter it, stands Nachshon Ben Aminadav. Behind us, on a chariot, Pharoah is leading his hordes of well-trained soldiers. They are rapidly catching up. Yes, it is Pharoah – the short, obnoxious leader of the Egyptians that dared to present himself as a god.

But who exactly was he? What was his name? What do we know about him?

In the 77^th chapter of a work called Sefer HaYashar, which was first printed in Venice in 1525, there are details as to what his name was, and more about who he may have been. [Alter Bergmann published a more recent edition of it in Tel Aviv]. The author of this Sefer HaYashar is anonymous, and there seems to be a debate as to whether it was written in the times of the Tannaim or is a much later compilation.

So, what do we know about Pharoah according to the Sefer HaYashar? Well, apparently he took the throne at the age of twenty. His father, Melol, was sick for the last ten years of his life, but had reigned for 94 years. His name was Adikam Ahuz. In Egyptian, according to the Sefer HaYashar, Ahuz means short, and short he was. He was an Ammah and one half, exceedingly ugly, and had a beard down to his feet. [One perhaps could best picture him as one of the seven dwarfs a la Snow White, but with a crown instead of a nightcap]. The Sefer HaYashar states that his reign started in the 206^th year of Israel’s going down to Mitzrayim, so he reigned for four years.[...]

Dying patients denied experimental drugs - what can be done?

CNN     At first, Sandy Barker decided to behave nicely and sit silently in the audience as an official from the Food and Drug Administration extolled the virtues of a program to get experimental drugs to desperately ill patients.

Then she couldn't take it anymore. Barker's hand shot up.

"I've been sitting here for the past hour trying to be quiet, but I want to tell you what happened to my son," she said.

Barker looked down at a picture of Christian on her lap. She started to cry, but regained enough composure to describe how her son was diagnosed eight years ago with a rare form of leukemia when he was 13. A bone marrow transplant was supposed to help, but instead the donor's cells attacked Christian's body.

Christian's graft-versus-host disease was quickly getting worse. His life was on the line. Nothing was working. 

The Barkers searched for studies he could join but found none. Christian's doctors desperately wanted to try an experimental drug, but first the FDA had to give its blessing. 

The Barkers and their doctors begged the agency to allow Christian to use the medicine. By the time permission was given, more than three weeks had passed, and the graft-versus-host disease had moved to stage 4, the most severe stage. 

Christian died two months later.

During a panel discussion at a conference on rare diseases, Barker says the FDA official noted it can be helpful to lobby one's congressman to get access to experimental drugs.[...]

Last month the parents of a 7-year-old boy did just that and made headlines around the world. Josh Hardy's parents took to Twitter and Facebook when the drug company Chimerix denied their request for an experimental antiviral drug to save Josh's life. After receiving death threats from "Josh's army" -- executives had to hire security guards -- Chimerix reversed its position and granted Josh and other patients like him access to the drug.

Now that he's had the medicine, the virus that nearly killed Josh is gone and he's been moved out of the intensive care unit.[...]

Clergy Counselors and Confidentiality: A Case for Scrutiny: Rabbis Weinberger & Flaum

Jaapl    This is in regards to my recent post regarding Rabbi Biderman's breach of confidentiality by forwarding emails from Beth Alexander to her husband and a judge who is a friend of the husband. That raises the larger question of the parameters of rabbinic confidentiality. I am posting a link to legal discusion of a case in New York in which two rabbis tranmitted information that the wife revealed to them - to her then husband without informing her in advance or even warning her that they were obligated to reveal certain information to the husband. Was there in fact any halachic justification for Rabbi Biderman to reveal Beth's emails to her husband?

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

As religious organizations contribute increasingly to community mental health, counseling by clergy acquires greater significance. As a result, clergy confront from time to time ethics challenges resulting from the need to balance a commitment to clients and an obligation to follow the requirements of religious doctrine. The recent New York case of Lightman v. Flaum highlights an example of this dilemma. A woman who asked two rabbis (Flaum and Weinberger) for help in her marriage complained that they had violated the confidentiality she expected of them. The rabbis requested summary judgment based on religious grounds, and the trial court rejected their request. The state’s highest court concurred with an appeal court’s reversal of the trial court. We discuss the arguments raised in this case about the extent to which clergy may owe a duty of confidentiality to those who consult them for psychological help, and we also consider the religion-based arguments that would fashion an exception to confidentiality in this unique context.

Schlesinger Twins: Beth describes the day Michael tried to commit her to a mental hospital

update - text format errors fixed.

In the following chilling yet fascinating account Beth Alexander describes her allegations of abuse by her husband - culminating in his calling the police to have her committed to a mental hospital.

Often when an intelligent, self-confident woman claims abuse by a husband who is perceived as a wonderful man - the question is if these allegations are true - why didn't she just walk out. Why would anyone tolerate this treatment. Unfortunately it is very common - and there are many factors.  In this case her version is supported by the police report.

As with many divorce accounts - it is important to realize this is her side of the story. If Dr. Schlesinger wishes to present his side - I will provide a forum for his version.

Beth's Diary the Day He Tried to Commit Me 

Rav Ahron Sorcher: Shabbos derasha this Shabbos - in Lakewood

Schlesinger Twins: Questioning the Willinger report that the judge used to take custody from Beth (part I)

There have been requests for the original documents dealing with this case. There are a lot of pages. Basically we have a court decision which based on  psychologists who had ties to the father which took custody away from Beth and gave it to Michael. Something rather unusual. Prior to that Beth had full custody because of Michael's attempt to have Beth committed to a mental hospital by falsely claiming he was a psychiatrist. However it was determined by the police psychiatrist that she was not mentally ill. An additional reason for Beth being given custody is because of her claims of physical and mental abuse

There was a psychiatric evaluation at the social agency Esra as the result of Beth being lured under false pretenses for a visit regarding child rearing - by someone she thought was her friend. In fact Dr. Schlesinger's supporters had convinced the friend that Beth was suffering from post partum depression and needed to be evaluated. That psychiatrist concluded that Beth was not mentally ill. There was another psychologist - who Dr. Schlesinger had surreptitiously visit the twins at a social agency.  She observed them for only a few minutes before she was discovered and kicked out. However she wrote a 5 page report not only on the twins but also on  Beth (based on what Michael told her). This "report" was submitted as evidence to the court also.

Basically I am going to start at the end, where recognized experts who examined Beth were asked to confirm or deny the reports from Dr. Schlesinger's experts that were the reason that the judge took full custody from Beth and gave it to Michael. I am simply going to give some excerpts from these reports. It should be clear that the judge's justification for giving custody to Michael is deeply flawed.

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

 Dr. Willinger [the author of the main report the judge replied upon ] concluded the children were 'retarded' because they did not speak 200 words at 2 years old. Yet she had only seen them when they were 14 months and 16 months old.

Dr. Willinger based her assessment of the developmental delay on the very general scales of child development.

“A healthy linguistic development can be seen if a child of approx. 18 months has an active vocabulary of 50 words, the “critical amount”, in order to achieve the so-called “vocabulary explosion” which leads a child to have 200 words by the time they are 24 months old, so that they learn about 9 new words a day. It is easy for parents to ascertain a linguistic delay.” Willinger Report

 This is totally debunked by the expert that Beth consulted - Dr Sinko Sanz - who stated:

“I believe however, that these scales do not take into account inter-individual development. This is not just my personal opinion, but the limitations of these development scales are recognised in professional circles. This is also the reason why I rarely apply them…”

Dr. Willinger´s claims were also contradicted by a scientific study that Beth's lawyer submitted, that concluded speech retardation could not be recognised under the age of 3.

Dr. Willinger criticised Beth for not questioning the opinions of her pediatrician, health visitor and child psychologist, who all told Beth that the children were healthy and well developed in her care. She said Beth should have looked on the Internet, seen the development scales, realised her children were not at the right stage and then questioned their professional expertise.

Dr Sinko-Sanz, from a human perspective, defended Beth's actions and said they were perfectly understandable.

“It is a situation where she (the mother) is under strain and where, as far as I know, was given different opinions by many different people. In such a situation you tend to accept the statements that are positive. I think that's understandable. Even more so where the people that said that everything was okay (with the children´s development) were medical professionals.” Court hearing 17 June 2011

Dr. Willinger fabricated test results for 180 questions that Beth had not even filled out! When Mag. Oberschlick produced the pages that Beth hadn't sent back to Willinger and asked her during the 10 hour hearing how she nevertheless had test results for these pages, Willinger denied that the test hadn't been filled out and said she had the completed tests in her office. Even though her original handwriting was on the pages in Beth's possession. She claimed:

“A test for both children was filled out. I have these tests among my documents. It is a mystery to me where these other filled in tests come from. I didn't give out a second document.”  Court hearing, 24.6.2011

Judge Göttlicher did not question this bizarre statement or investigate the matter further.

·

Both further psychiatric assessments by Dr Leixnering and Dr Wörgottor totally discredit the Willinger report

Willinger´s report was based on just 2 short assessments of the children.  By contrast, Dr Sinko-Sanz had assessed them over a 6-month period and said they were developing at their own pace.

Willinger´s assessment of  Beth as ´incoherent, illogical, delusional´ was later wholly refuted by 3 senior psychiatrists; Dr Marianne Springer Kremser, Dr Wörgetter and Dr Leixnering, who all confirmed Willinger had fabricated a diagnosis and there were no mental health problems whatsoever.

4.7.1     Dr. Willinger describes the father´s interaction with the children as follows:

The child raising ability of the children´s father can be shown by the given ratings. The children´s father is able to reflect in a variety of ways on the needs of his sons, by being able to recognize their emotional and physical needs.

P.49

In the interaction with his two sons, a loving, caring, intimate, very safe and routine behaviour can be observed.

        In contrast, Dr Löffler, who saw the children long after, on 21.7.2011, just 4 days before the father was awarded sole custody, described the relationship between the father and the children as follows:

Children´s father: no outreach (of children) to children´s father, no independent contact initiated, children´s father crosses boundaries in his behaviour, little reaction to the needs / signals of the child (turning away, ignoring). Danger Report, 21.7.2011, Dr Löffler

Judge Göttlicher herself initially accepted there were flaws in the Willinger report    

          

 In fact, Göttlicher herself initially raised doubts about the self same Willinger report.  Her sudden, drastic decision of 25.7.2011 was highly irregular and unusual considering that just 2 months previously, in May 2011 she denied the father's application for temporary custody on the grounds that the children were well cared for with their mother and she saw no danger: The judge noted:

“The mother takes good care of the children both in their daily care and upbringing and concerns herself with their welfare. This is well attested in the submitted reports in the file, including the reports of the Social Services (second district) and the statements from play groups. This point (the care of the mother for her children) is also not disputed by the father.” 

 Further, even Willinger attested to the loving parenting Beth showed the children:

"Even the report of the court expert, Dr Willinger states that the mother lovingly and caringly looks after the children and they are closely bonded to her.” Appeal Court decision, Denial Temporary Custody May 2011.

The fact that the Appeal Court acknowledged there was apparently nothing wrong with Beth but then said this didn´t affect parenting ability custody decision is simply outrageous.

“From the great wealth of evidence during the proceedings, it is apparent that the mother does not suffer from a psychiatric illness. However, child raising competence has no direct correlation to mental illness.” p.2 Appeal Court decision 2013

update Further refutation of Willinger

        Judge Göttlicher refers (original custody decision) to Beth's claims that Michael Schlesinger was also violent generally during throughout the marriage.  However she goes on to say that “the expert [Willinger] found nothing in the whole examination that indicated that the father might be aggressive, violent or not in control of his impulses. Oddly Judge Göttlicher did not send Dr. Willinger copies of the police documents attempt to have Beth committed nor his subsequent eviction order and restraining order and all mention of it is omitted from the Willinger report. 

          In the custody decision, Judge Göttlicher failed to mention Willinger’s hypothesis as stated by her in the 10 hour court hearing, that either the mother is not mentally ill and everything she alleged about the violence is correct, or she is mentally ill and is paranoid.  Beth's lawyer asked what we could deduce about the father if Beth were not mentally ill and Dr. Willinger stated this would be 'manipulation' by the father:

 “If we accept the opposing hypothesis, that the mother is not mentally ill, then the father's actions can be seen as manipulation.' Transcript, court hearing Willinger, 24.7.2011

As three further psychiatric reports (including a court commissioned one) all confirmed the mother is clearly not mentally ill, according to Willinger's reasoning, the father is manipulative.

The Story of the Jews by Simon Schama (PBS broadcast)

If the video is not accessible try this link
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x166tz5_the-story-of-the-jews-in-the-beginning-ep1_creation

'Open Orthodox' or 'Neo Conservative'? by Rabbi Pruzansky

Arutz 7     "Open Orthodoxy", the Jewish movement which has been kicking up a storm in the US, has faced considerable opposition from the Modern Orthodox establishment there.

The term "Open Orthodoxy" was coined by Rabbi Avi Weiss, himself ordained as an Orthodox rabbi, who argues that "Orthodoxy" or Halakhic Judaism (i.e. faithful to Jewish law/Halakha) needed to be more "inclusive" and "flexible" to innovation than his contemporaries believed.

The movement has gained some traction in recent years, even as it is shunned by most other Orthodox rabbis, and has courted controversy by testing - and, as many respected rabbis insist, by outright crossing - the boundaries of Halakha.

Much of the criticism to the movement has come from the Rabbinical Council of America (RCA), the main body of American Modern Orthodox Rabbis and the largest rabbinic organization in the world.

One of Weiss's most vocal critics is Rabbi Steven Pruzansky, a former Vice-Chairman of the RCA and Arutz Sheva contributor. [...]

"One of their most prominent ordained rabbis has even argued that the Avot [Biblical Patriarchs] never really existed."

Positions such as these are what makes Open Orthodoxy "almost a replication of the road that the Conservative movement took over 100 years ago", Rabbi Pruzansky reiterates.[...]

But despite all that, clearly there are many Jewish people who see Open Orthodoxy as filling a need... that something that is missing in their Judaism. How do you respond to that?

For Rabbi Pruzansky, this question drills down to the fundamental error committed by movements such as Open Orthodoxy: an attempt to adapt and rewrite Torah values to suit every demand or ideal of the contemporary western world.

"You can't slake every thirst, that's the bottom line," he explains.

In particular, he says the domination of Open Orthodoxy and similar fringe movements by feminist activists is an indication that they are not drawing their fundamental values from the Torah, but looking outside of it.[...]

Miserliness and Speaking Badly about Others by Allan Katz

Allan Katz    James Ferrel from  The Arbinger institute ,in his highly recommended TedX Talk – Resolving the Heart of Conflict  –and  Article  explains why we value problems above solutions, conflict above peace, reconciliation and  cooperation, and how to remedy the situation.

In a nutshell – James Ferrel explains that when we objectify people, or we don't share our resources with them - for example by not opening up our homes or our hearts to them , we need to justify our actions and  view of these people as being undeserving.This triggers our looking for plenty of negativity about them and sharing it with others. This inner need for justification is so strong that it overrides the need for peace and better interpersonal relationships.

In the talk he claims that we actually value problems, mistreatment, trouble, and conflict. He explains that according to Martin Buber, we don't have problems with people whom we count or identify with. We see their humanity and that they  - 'are made in God's image'. The others who don't count in our eyes are viewed as objects. It is easier to view or treat people badly if you ' objectify ' them. But objectifying people comes with a consequence – a deep inner need to justify that view. So the heart sees advantage in trouble and conflict, it provides the proof and justification that we are looking for. People then begin to value problems above solutions, conflict above peace and cooperation.

The way out of this trap is to see the humanity of others -and that they are made in God's image. In an article – James Ferrel writes about company executives, employees and representatives of the unions who spent some time in a holiday resort trying to see how they could cooperate much more efficiently. At the end of the 3 days, they attempted to resolve disputes which had been around for more than a year and that were scheduled for arbitration. 'They resolved the disputes in forty minutes , because – during the first 2 days together they solved the heart of the conflict that had been dividing them, which was the mutual objectification and blame for each other. Until they saw their conflict partners as people, with hopes, dreams, cares and fears as real as their own, they needed justification more than they needed resolution and were both unwilling and unable to find creative, mutually beneficial possibilities. They found too much advantage in problems to be able to find lasting solutions.' – James Ferrel. [...]

Are People born Good: Dennis Prager

Schlesinger twins: Beth discusses the issue of psychological assessments typically required in custody cases

Rabbi Tzadok has raised some important questions regarding this custody case. I asked Beth Alexander to respond to his questions as well as to clarify and explain the facts. Her response should correct a number of misunderstandings that have been expressed by some of her supporters and opponents.

I still stand by my original proposal. If Dr. Schlesinger has a psychiatric evaluation by a neutral expert it would end the dispute. If he gets a clear bill of mental health then I think Beth should stop her campaign and accept the court ruling. On the other hand if the evaluation indicates significant problems then Beth should get full custody including the option of returning to England with her children.

Guest post by Beth Alexander Schlesinger

Any legal battle is difficult. Compounded with custody issues, the battle is all the more trying. Navigating your way through a custody battle in a foreign country, in a foreign language, grappling a legal system and its workings that are totally alien and baffling is like being lost in a maze blindfolded with your hands tied behind your back and your feet bound together. 

Not being a lawyer and without always having legal consultation to explain the nuances of the court decisions to me, I have had to try and make sense of a process that has so far not made any sense to a single lawyer or professional that has been involved in the case. The oft repeated terms, 'Kafkaesque, and 'the Wild West' are perhaps the closest way of describing the bizarre chain of events stretching back to 2010. 

Through my own experiences and conversations with countless other parents going though their own hellish custody battles here in Austria, I have gained a crash course in the standard procedures that judges should follow and know that my case has been highly irregular by any stretch of the imagination. 

Custody decisions are almost always based on a court commissioned psychological assessments on all parties involved: father, mother and child/ children. As was to be expected, the judge commissioned such an assessment back in 2010 after we first separated. 

This was carried out by Dr Ulrike Willinger in 2010, a psychologist I later discovered has a direct connection to Dr Schlesinger. Not only did Dr Schlesinger work in the same hospital as her, but it later emerged that she is a close colleague of Dr Thau, the husband of Konstanze Thau, the High Court judge who intervened in the case on Dr Schlesinger's behalf without having any legal standing on the case.

By the time I found that out, it was too late. Willinger had already fabricated a diagnosis on me, falsely labelled the children as 'retarded' for 'not speaking 200 words when the children when 2 years old' and recommended the father for full custody.  Even though the children were only 14 months and 16 months when she saw them and even though the High Court denied Dr Schlesinger unsupervised access.The judge accepted the highly dubious report in its entirety and awarded the father sole custody in July 2011.  

I appealed. The Appeal Court reduced the father's custody to interim custody and sent the case back to the Lower Court for 'further investigation.' They stated that the father would have to prove:

1) his cooperation over an extended period of time (he promised to allow me generous contact to the children whenever I wanted, including long holidays to England with the children should he be awarded custody)

2) that he really is the better parent to manage the daily needs of the children

The reality is:

1) The very first thing the father did after being awarded custody was to break off all contact between me and the children. It was 8 weeks before I saw them again. Since then he has repeatedly cancelled my visits on short notice and without valid reasons.

2) He immediately hired Filipinos to look after the children almost full time while he works. He still has the Filipinos to this day. 

 

For the past 2 years I have repeatedly applied to the court for the judge to commission another psychological assessment on both the children and the father. 

I have presented extremely worrying evidence both about the father's violence and erratic/ irregular behaviour that clearly points to some kind of personality disorder. I have also expressed strong concerns about the children's physical and psychological health, including concerns about their missing teeth which the father has, to date, failed to account for. 

However, instead of commissioning a new assessment on all involved parties as is standard legal procedure in a custody trial, the judge relied on the same fabricated and outdated report by Willinger to award the father full and final custody 2 years later, in 2013. She only commissioned an assessment on me which proved I was 100% healthy. 

The Willinger report has now been discredited by 3 experts, making her initial custody recommendation and the decision that was based on it, completely worthless. 

Although strictly speaking a psychiatric assessment on the father was never specifically instructed by the Appeal and Supreme Court, it is incomprehensible why the father has not not been psychologically assessed since the judge commissioned an assessment on me!

It is a basic legal requirement to assess the parent who is to be awarded full custody by an independent expert, especially in light of the evidence we presented about him. 

Yet, the judge claimed she had enough evidence without commissioning a psychiatric assessment on him. 

Not only does this illustrate the clear one-sidedness of the process but also represents gross negligence by the judge to disregard his attempt to commit me to a mental hospital on a fabricated diagnosis and his lies to the police that he was a psychiatrist when he was a trainee doctor with no experience in psychiatry whatsoever.  

None of the testimony of his violence and erratic/ irrational behaviour reported by myself and other witnesses has ever been investigated by the courts. 

Dr Schlesinger has vehemently refused every suggestion of an independent psychological assessment on both the children and himself. I had no problem being investigated since I was confident of the results which proved beyond any doubt that there is no mental illness and neither has there ever been. I have never in my life taken medication other than paracetamol for an occasional headache which my medical records can also prove. 

If Dr Schlesinger genuinely has nothing to hide, why is he so afraid of being assessed or having the children assessed? What does he fear an independent expert may uncover?

Schlesinger Twins: Sarah's guest post regarding Rabbi Biderman

Sarah promised to discuss the Schlesinger Twins case with Rabbi Biderman if I posted his written testimony to the  court from 2012. I have fulfilled that condition  and I am looking forward to her guest post describing that discussion. I would also accept a guest post from Rabbi Biderman himself or from Dr. Schlesinger or one of his supporters.

 Allan Katz  has raised the central issue

R-Biederman, even if the kids were doing well with the father is it not important for the kids to have a relationship with a mother beyond the once a week visits, which have on several times being cancelled- especially at this tender age. Why does the father not remarry - being looked after by 2 fillipinos is not a home for them. Where is the ahavas yisroel for Beth - Is it because she is an outsider , there are no feelings for the plight of the mother. We are taught not to learn from the midos of the people of Canaan - apply this to Austria and Germany. The father is waging a war against his wife on the backs of his kids- he wants custody not because he can provide a better home and family life - 2 fillipinos - but to make Beth's life as miseable as possible. 

There are a number of issues that need clarification (besides those listed below).

1. Was his testimony based on his own observations or was he relying primarily on information from Dr. Michael Schlesinger

2. Does he view himself impartial or is he openly taking Dr. Schlesinger's side against Beth.

3. How does he think the twins are doing now relative to their peers - in language, psychological, social and developmental issues? It is two years since his written testimony have they significantly changed?.

4. Are the twins receiving therapy for their obvious language problems?

5. Is he against Beth regaining custody and why?

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

Not brainwahedMarch 27, 2014 at 12:25 PM

Anyone who is brainwashed or corrupt (or both) will always deny it when confronted, just like Sarah has done. She also refuses to comment on the following:

1) Rabbi Biderman has made voluntary statements to the court (most notably in May 2012) under his own name (not from the kindergarten office), in support of the father. Why would he do this? He clearly HAS involved himself so it is impossible for him now to claim he is impartial.

2) If Rabbi Biderman’s position is justifiable, why are you defending him under anonymous comments on a blog? Why doesn’t he speak for himself and write a statement explaining his position as a guest blog post. This case has reached a large enough audience around the world with enough people posing genuine questions, for ‘Rabbi’ Biderman to be a man and answer some of them. His silence raises even more questions than the one’s posed to him here.

Until these points are addressed, we all are entirely justifiable in being angry at Rabbi Biderman and his Chabad colleagues for being silent in the face of such an injustice.

Delete

sarahMarch 27, 2014 at 1:07 PM

when you show me said letters, I will personally call him and ask him!

hows that?

Transformative Mediation: Professor Baruch Busch describes his theory and practice

Schlesinger Twins: Rabbi Biderman's testimony regarding the twins

I, Rabbi Jacob Biderman, born on 28.11.1957 declare the following in testimony to the court:

Due to requests for the voluntary testimony that Rabbi Biderman - the head of the kindergarten that the twins attend - gave to the court, I am posting this translation from the German

---------------- Dated 15.5.2012

In the last few days I was contacted by a Rabbinic colleague in England who informed me that an acquaintance of Beth Schlesinger has initiated a media campaign which is about to be publicised. The media campaign claims that this is a 'horror story,' that the twins Samuel and Benjamin Schlesinger are in a very bad state with their father and that their father is endangering them. They further claim that this is demonstrated by the fact that Samuel needed a number of teeth removed. I refuted these claims and told this Rabbi that the director of the Lauder Chabad Kindergarten, which is under my authority, has told me not only about how well the children have settled into kindergarten since Autumn but also how much they have developed psychologically. I also told my English colleague that these false and one-sided claims illustrate amateur journalism and above all, harm the children Furthermore, I am being harassed by different Rabbonim from England, Israel and Australia who have contacted me to ask me to help the mother because - according to her - the children are in a terrible state.

Rabbi Jacob Biderman ----------------

Schlesinger Twins: Rebbitzen Rosenberg comes to Vienna community to help Beth and her children

Guest post by Rebbetzin Miriam Rosenberg. 

The Rebbetzin is the wife of Rav Sariel Rosenberg from Bnei Brak -  a major talmid chachom and posek who is a member of the beis din of Rav Karelitz. She is very actively involved in helping woman who have lost the custody of their children. She has visited Vienna a number of times and spent much time investigating Beth's case and she was appalled at the lack of support for  Beth as well as how the twins have suffered. I asked her to write a guest post of what she has found.

Below is her 5 page letter translated in full from the Hebrew followed by the Hebrew original she sent me for posting here. In the first part she describes the tragic story of Yael which led her to Vienna to raise money for lawyers and where she found out about Beth. She describes in great detail the great miscarriage of justice and the reasons the community - which is known for it kindness and generosity - has failed to intervene.

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

   Rebbitzen Rosenberg's Letter for Beth

  חוות דעת משפחת שלזינגר, וינה by Rebbetzin Miriam Rosenberg

Interview of Rabbi Yitzchak Goodman on his New Translation of “Marvels of our Blessed G-d’s Torah”

Five Towns Jewish Times by Rabbi Yair Hoffman

YH: So Rabbi Goodman, I understand that you have recently translated what has been described as “Rav Aharon Kotler’s favorite Sefer.”

RG:  Yes, I was always fascinated by that sefer, “Niflaos MiToras Hashem Yisboroch” ever since I heard Rav Aharon Kotler greatly praised it and called it a segulah for Yiras Shamayim.

YH: What does the sefer do exactly?

RG: He proves that nobody but Hashem could have written the Torah because many enigmatic or unclear sentences become perfectly clear when you realize that they allude to events in the days of Dovid or Shlomo centuries after the Torah was given. [....]

Rav Triebitz's Introduction to my Daas Torah - cited by Dr. Sperber

Seforim Blog  excerpt from Dr. Sperber's , On the Relationship of Mitzvot Between Man and His Neighbor and Man and His Maker. From Chapter 4

Here we may also call attention to R. Meir Triebitz’s insightful analysis (in his introduction to R. Daniel Eidensohn’s Daas Torah: A Jewish Sourcebook [Jerusalem: 2005, 31–35]). He begins by noting that God commands us twice to study Torah: once in Deuteronomy 11:19, and again in Deuteronomy 4:9–11. He analyzes the differences between these two formulations in all their details – e.g., one in the plural and the other in the singular; one talks of teaching, the other telling; one focuses on parents to children, while the other lists three generations. He concludes that “the two verses which obligate us to learn the Torah actually refer to two types of study. One refers to the study of the legal part of Torah, and the other to the study of Torah’s theology. Each form of study is deemed a separate scholarly enterprise.” He characterizes these two forms of study as “legal” (i.e., halachic) study, and “faith” study, which he states “deals primarily with Aggadic parts of the Torah.” But for our purposes it is important to emphasize that both verses, that is to say both classes of study, require the student also to be a teacher, and to pass on his learning to future generations. Hence, Torah study has a social aspect too.

Holy amnesia: remembering religious sages as super humans or as simply human

University of Portsmouth reprints by Yohai Hakak (2009)

 Abstract

The last decade has witnessed a wave of Haredi literature dealing with the education of children and youth in particular. A common question raised in this literature is that of the proper way to describe the Torah sages of previous generations, i.e., what needs to be remembered and what should be forgotten about them. Many of the writers criticize the ways of writing customary up to our time, which tended to describe Torah sages as superhuman and as lacking any weaknesses or failings; raising educational concerns, they call for a change in these ways of portrayal. In this article, I apply Mary Douglas’s theoretical model of ‘‘enclave culture’’ to the current social circumstances of the Haredi community, in an attempt to explain both the origins of this trend as well as the sources of opposition to these new ways of writing history within the Haredi community.

In 2002 , Rabbi Nathan Kamenetsky’s book Making of a Godol was published. The title of the book suggests the writer’s intention to demonstrate that even the greatest Torah sages did not come into the world with all the attributes of greatness, but rather went through a long process of struggle with human difficulties and weaknesses. The book raised a storm and within a short time was banned. The great Torah sages of Israel, headed by Rabbi Yosef Shalom Eliashiv, demanded that the author cease its distribution.

In a letter banning the book, signed by the greatest Lithuanian rabbis in Israel, the book is described thus:

It is full of grave humiliations, flippancies, and mockeries and creates a bad name for some of our greatest rabbis who are the holiest of the luminaries of Israel of the last generations. For they are the ‘ancients [who are] like angels’ and from their words all Israel lives [...] and the greatness of their honour and holiness is rooted in the heart of every God-fearing Jew. And this book seeks to abolish this through slander, disgrace and humiliation of their glorified honour, which is also the honour of our blessed God and our holy Torah.
--------

page 17:

Rabbi Hutner’s comments continued to make waves. Rabbi Yechiel Ya’acob-amongst the most prominent Haredi educators, also referred to this issue. In his lectures, he would often proclaim that ‘‘one should remove the Torah sages from the Burial Society,’’ when hinting at the fact that their current description in Haredi biographies causes children and youth to despair and in fact ‘‘buries’’ them alive. Rabbi Ya’acobson claims in his lectures that ‘‘one cannot educate through lies’’ and mentions that the Bible and the Talmud are replete with uncomplimentary descriptions about the nation’s illustrious figures.

Another educator to relate to the subject was Rabbi Yitzhak Hershkowitz,35 in his book She’ifot(‘‘Strivings’’) (2003 p. c) he devotes the 14 pages of the introduction to his voluminous book to shattering the delusion regarding the path of the Torah sages. As part of this effort,he introduces tales that testify to Torah sages’ struggles with the evil inclination andto the immense effort they had to invest in in order to become renowned in Torah.Thus, for example, he offers comments made by the Vilna Gaon to his student, the Magid MiDubnow, who asked to be bestowed with his evil inclination. In reply to the request, Hershkowitz quotes the Vilna Gaon as saying (2003, p. 3): ‘‘My child, may the Lord protect you from my evil inclination; it burns in me like fire!’’ On page 6, under the heading ‘‘Most Torah Sages Did Not Have Talent’’ he describes the tremendous efforts that befell whoever became a Torah sage and the travail that was the lot of those achieving this status...

How is Empathy different from Sympathy - Dr. Brene Brown

Time-Out or Time-In by Allan Katz

Allan Katz    Time-outs are a popular discipline tool as they can be implemented immediately and can be over in a couple of minutes. Time-outs are described as 'Punishment Lite' .They are  less destructive than other punishments such as spanking. The term is derived from 'time-out from positive reinforcements' techniques used with animals and the idea is that we use love withdrawal or not give attention when the child is misbehaving. Kids are rewarded with attention ,love and connection when they behave and don't get the love , connection and attention when they misbehave. The down side is that kids  feel their parents' love is conditional on how they behave, they are shown less love,  feel abandoned, rejected and confused. For parents the word time-out is easier to swallow than forced solitary confinement, which is what actually happens   when a kid is banished to his room. The idea is that kids should also use this time and reflect on what they did and how it impacted on others.

There seems to be a basis for ' forced solitary confinement from this week's portion-parasha Tazria. The person = Metzorah sinned by speaking badly about other people and as a result of his 'lashon ha'ra = evil speech, he developed a skin disease erroneously called leprosy. He was removed from people and put into solitary confinement. He would be able then to appreciate the importance of other people family, friends and community in giving him  'life' and how destructive and divisive his actions were to interpersonal relations and people.  In fact the Metzrorah who has the disease and is in solitary confinement is considered as having no life and as if he were dead. This is not because of his suffering due to the disease says Rabbi Chaim Shmulevitz, but due to him being in solitary confinement. Reb Isaac Sher explains that the disease = Tzara'at is only visiteupon  righteous people who had sinned. Without sin, their skins shone as if the divine presence was reflected in them. But when they sinned the divine presence left them and their skins lost their brightness and developed spots and marks. Fools and wicked people were not on the highest levels so they could be subject to this type of   divine intervention. Also in solitary confinement these people would just feel sorry for themselves , and not reflect on how their actions impacted on others and then repent.

When kids are forced to do ' time-outs the last thing they do is reflect on what they did and feel sorry for others or a sibling. The now feel sorry for themselves, think their parents are mean and plan to get revenge against  his brother. In any case the focus is now on complying with the time-out and on the 'mean' parent and not on the problem that gave rise to the time-out. This leads to power struggles , kids running away when they hear the word time-out, or keep on asking if they can get up, and worst of all because parents find themselves using time-outs repeatedly and often for the same offence. When time-outs don't work parents find themselves doing moretime-outs  and more harsh versions of the same thing.

Instead parents trying to feel in control parents should aim for ' connection' and cooperation. They should be pro-active and 'not in the moment'  try to collaboratively solve problems that are predictably giving rise to challenging behavior. And even' in the moment', instead of threatening a kid with a time-out, they can do a 'time –in ' and ask what's going on and remind the kid that what he does has an impact on other people, explain that some ways of acting are just unacceptable and then try to solve the problem where kids are likely to feel that their needs are being considered. Parents can also use time -in to  empathize with a kid's feelings, helping them to process their feelings which all maybe needed to help the storm pass over. We could also suggest another activity and with toddlers try to distract or redirect them. [...]

Today’s Girls Love Pink Bows as Playthings, but These Shoot

NY Times    Once upon a time, Grace Maher twirled around the house in Disney princess costumes, a vision of sequins, tiaras and pink.

She’s 8 now and done with all that. The only pink left is her new bow and arrow.

That would be her Nerf Rebelle Heartbreaker Exclusive Golden Edge Bow by Hasbro, a petunia-colored weapon with gold and white trim that shoots colorful foam darts. Forget Ariel, the beautiful mermaid princess. Grace’s new role model is Katniss Everdeen, the (also beautiful) huntress/survivor in the “Hunger Games” trilogy of books and movies.

Heroines for young girls are rapidly changing, and the toy industry — long adept at capitalizing on gender stereotypes — is scrambling to catch up.

Toy makers have begun marketing a more aggressive line of playthings and weaponry for girls — inspired by a succession of female warrior heroes like Katniss, the Black Widow of “The Avengers,” Merida of “Brave” and now, Tris of the book and new movie “Divergent” — even as the industry still clings to every shade of pink. [...]

Yosef Kolko pidyon shvuyim fund in Lakewood

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/10/kolko-gets-15-years-after-judge-rejects.html

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2013/05/yosef-kolko-pleads-guilty-to-charges.html

http://daattorah.blogspot.com/2012/06/yehuda-kolko-faces-13-year-old-accuser.html

update

Reb Daniel,

I'm sorry to report, that apparently your blog is not widely read in Lakewood...

Even after you published that the פדיון שבוים is for Kolko, the sign is still up in two shuls that I visited over Shabbos!?!

I'm not sure what should be done next, but there is one thing I'm sure about. If these signs are allowed to linger for a while, the oilam will get used to seeing them. After a few weeks they will subtly add Kolkos name, thereby establishing that "he didn't commit a crime" as the communities conclusion!!! (Nobody came to empty the boxes, which can be attributed to incompetence. I'm afraid however, that they are leaving them out there for the PR campaign, which is far more valuable in the long run then the few dollars in the box.)

Schlesinger Twins: Is Dr. Schlesinger concerned about the welfare of his kids?

Dear All,                                                                                 May 11, 2012

As you know Mr Schlesinger cancelled my visit on Thursday because the children had a dentist appointment. I asked for a substitute visit to take place this Sunday. The visiting centre wrote me an email today lo inform me that Mr Schlesinger has refused a substitute visit this Sunday or at any other time.

The woman in charge informed me that Benji had an operation on his teeth but did not have any removed. She wrote that he developed a fever last night and there is no way he will be well enough to see me, his mother, on Sunday. No mention was made of Sammy's welfare but I have been denied access to him too.

lt is horrific that I had to be informed by a total stranger - after the event - that my child had an operation (the same thing happened when Sammy's 4 teeth were removed). I have no idea what Benji's operation was for. Not only did Mr Schlesinger not think it appropriate to inform me, as the child's mother about such a major incident in his life, but he has denied this poor young boy, not yet 3 years old, access to his mother during and after such a traumatic event.

When the children lived with me and I had to take them to hospital when they were ill, [ immediately called Mr Schlesinger to tell him and said that, as their father, of course he could come to the hospital to see them, which he did.

Just before Pesach this year, I went in desperation to the Child Welfare Agency in Vienna to beg them to help. The head of the Agency agreed that this situation is intolerable for the children and said we must both go Lo mediation to find a way of communicating with one another for the sake of the children. 1 immediately accepted this offer as I was willing to try everything possible to improve the situation.

I have already attempted communication with the children's father many times via email, and text messages but he just ignores me. When the children lived with met even suggested that we take them to the park together but he refused.

The head of the Agency made separate appointments for each of us with an independent mediator, under a free service offered by the government. I kept my appointment but Mr Schlesinger did not, even though he had agreed with her in a telephone conversation that he would attend. He sent a letter to the Agency to say that he had changed his mind as he did not consider the mediator to be 'qualified enough.' He suggested his own private mediator, which was a family run business of mediators/ lawyers and there would be significant costs involved.

The qualifications of his proposed mediator did not appear to be any better than the mediator I went to who has had over 20 years experience in family counselling and has a well respected position working for the State.

Shabbat Shalom and best wishes,

Beth Schlesinger

Steven Pinker & Rebecca Goldstein: The long reach of reason

Lonna Kin Divorce: Unwilling to Allow His Wife a Divorce, He Marries Another

NY Times   The wedding was a modest affair, held in a reception hall overlooking an artificial lake tucked behind a suburban strip. But just minutes after it ended, the bride and groom hurriedly scurried past dozens of protesters here who were chanting “Bigamist!” and “Shame on you!” [...]

Meir Kin, the new husband, has been divorced for more than seven years, under California’s civil law. But he has refused to give his previous wife the document known as a “get,” as required by Orthodox Jewish law to end a marriage. In the eyes of religious authorities, the woman he married in 2000 is what is called an agunah — Hebrew for chained wife. Without the get, the woman, Lonna Kin, is forbidden under Jewish law to remarry. [...]

Ms. Kin, who runs a real estate company, and her supporters say that Mr. Kin, a physician assistant, is demanding $500,000 and full custody of their 12-year-old son in exchange for the divorce. And they cast doubt on whether he really has the support of 100 rabbis. Reached at his Las Vegas home on Thursday, as a photographer took pictures of him and his bride in the driveway, Mr. Kin declined to comment. [...]

Instead, Mr. Kin, who in recent years moved to Las Vegas, has repeatedly insisted that Ms. Kin agree to binding arbitration from one particular religious court based in Monsey that is controversial and has been widely denounced by rabbinical authorities in the United States and Israel. Several leading rabbis, including the chief rabbinical office of Israel, have said they would not accept a divorce document signed by this particular court. Mr. Kin has said that the head of the beit din, Rabbi Tzvi Dov Abraham of Monsey, granted him dispensation to marry again. [....]

Mr. Kin, according to several members of the small Las Vegas Orthodox community, has worshiped at two synagogues affiliated with the Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic movement, which is known for welcoming a broad array of Jews. The rabbis at those synagogues do not count him toward a quorum needed for prayer because of the controversy over his divorce case, but they have declined to publicly rebuke him or force him out, according to Rabbi Shea Harlig, the head of Chabad of southern Nevada.[...]

New Drugs May Transform Down Syndrome

Scientific American   People born with Down syndrome have always been considered to be incurably developmentally delayed—until now. In the past few years a number of laboratories have uncovered critical drug targets within disabled chemical pathways in the brain that might be restored with medication. At least two clinical trials are currently studying the effects of such treatments on people with Down syndrome. Now geneticist Roger Reeves of Johns Hopkins University may have stumbled on another drug target—this one with the potential to correct the learning and memory deficits so central to the condition.[...]

Reeves's team injected newborn Down mice with a chemical that stimulates an important neurodevelopmental pathway that, among other things, orchestrates cerebellum growth. “We were not in fact surprised that we fixed the cerebellum. That was our working hypothesis,” Reeves says. Yet he had not anticipated that three months after treatment the mice with a restored cerebellum would be able to learn their way around a water maze—a function of learning and memory thought to be controlled by another part of the brain, the hippocampus. The researchers do not yet know whether they inadvertently repaired the hippocampus or whether the cerebellum might be responsible for more learning and memory functions than previously realized.

In fact, other investigational treatments for Down syndrome target the hippocampus—but none target this particular chemical pathway. Reeves's study, published recently in Science Translational Medicine, may point to a pharmaceutical intervention that could allow those with Down syndrome to live more independent lives. “The possibility of actually giving Down syndrome people the ability to improve learning and memory significantly—that's something I never thought I'd see in my entire career,” he says. “And it's now happening. The game has changed.